Slashdot Mirror


Mark Zuckerberg Drops Lawsuits To Force Hundreds of Hawaiians To Sell Him Land (theguardian.com)

Last week, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg filed a lawsuit to force owners of several small parcels of land to sell to the highest bidder since these property owners are surrounded by Zuckerberg's land holdings and therefore have lawful easement to cross his private property. Ever since the story broke, Zuckerberg has faced major backlash from people all over the world, especially those living on the Hawaiian islands. On Wednesday, said he was "reconsidering" the set of lawsuits; today he announced that he will drop the lawsuits altogether. The Guardian reports: "Upon reflection, I regret that I did not take the time to fully understand the quiet title process and its history before we moved ahead," Zuckerberg wrote. "Now that I understand the issues better, it's clear we made a mistake." The process is controversial in Hawaii, where many view it as a tool of dispossession first employed by sugar barons, but later adopted by the wealthy malihini (newcomers) seeking vacation homes. Hawaii state representative Kaniela Ing, who emerged as one of the key critics of the lawsuits, said that he was "happy" and "humbled" by Zuckerberg's announcement. "It's not everyday where you face off with one of the most influential billionaires, best PR professionals and best attorneys in the world and win," he said. "It's a victory for everyone who shared the story on social media, for native Hawaiians, and for people everywhere. The parcels at stake in the Zuckerberg case were kuleana -- land granted to native Hawaiians in the 1850s after land was privatized for the first time in Hawaii -- contained within the boundaries of his 700-acre, $100m estate. Kuleana lands are especially important, law professor Kapua Sproat explained to the Guardian, because native Hawaiians view land as an "ancestor" or family member, rather than as a possession. "We understand that for native Hawaiians, kuleana are sacred and the quiet title process can be difficult," he wrote. "We want to make this right, talk with the community, and find a better approach." The CEO promised to hold discussion with "community leaders" representing native Hawaiians and environmentalists, and added that he is "looking for more ways to support the community as neighbors."

75 comments

  1. Upon reflection... by nwaack · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Upon reflection, I was being a douche and an assclown. Sorry...my bad."

    1. Re:Upon reflection... by x0ra · · Score: 5, Funny
      > "Upon reflection, I got caught by the same social media I helped develop. It's getting difficult to be a billionaire prick these day..."

      FTFY.

    2. Re:Upon reflection... by supernova87a · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, he was just following the rules and rights one expects of the laws of the US and most US states.

      The problem is that he did not realize that Hawaii is a place where normal rule of law is not really obeyed, or it is ignored depending on if you are a certain color/race, and you cannot depend on your rights being upheld because you'll get yelled at for antagonising other certain colors/races -- which you cannot defend against out loud because it's politically incorrect.

    3. Re:Upon reflection... by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      > "Upon reflection, one of my many cases of being a douche and an assclown has been exposed. Sorry, my bad, will prevent such exposure in the future."
      FTFY.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    4. Re:Upon reflection... by chipschap · · Score: 1

      "Upon reflection, I was being a douche and an assclown. Sorry...my bad."

      That's one way to look at it and I'm not saying it's wrong. That he and his staff didn't do due diligence up front is
      another way to look at it. There are probably aspects of both ideas operating here.

      What I don't think he or his staff tumbled to is how complex things are in Hawai`i, and that goes up by orders of magnitude when you start talking about land rights and title. Direct ownership of land was never a Hawaiian concept, but it more or less started in 1848 with "The Great Mahele" distrbution of land and the coming into existence of "kuleana" properties. Tracing title to these parcels over almost 170 years can in some cases be an impossible task. That's one reason why "quiet title" proceedings are sometimes undertaken; to gain control over "noisy" titles like these.

      But what he really missed was something that anyone who lives here would have caught on to in under three seconds: that such a move on his part would be wildly unpopular and heavily criticized, that it would be seen as all too reminiscent of the way haoles grabbed land and ultimately, in 1893, took the kingdom entirely. Stirring up that kind of hornet's nest was a really, really dumb thing to do (and that leaves aside morality or lack thereof).

      What I'd really like to know is if he had local advisors who warned him of the consequences but he decided to go ahead anyhow. I don't know the answer to that question, but if it was that way, it speaks badly of him.

    5. Re:Upon reflection... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      The problem is that he did not realize that Hawaii is a place where normal rule of law is not really obeyed

      The problem is that ordinary Americans did not realize that Wall Street is a place where normal rule of law is not really obeyed.

      Just think of the last line of the "Pledge to the Flag": ". . . one Nation, under God, with Freedom and Justice for the rich."

      If it wasn't for those meddling Hawaiian Kids, their goofy dog, the "Mystery Machine" and that damned social media platform, nobody would have heard of this, and Da Zuck would have gotten away with it.

      So he has done a 180 because of all the attention now . . . but now I hope a few folks really know what he is like inside. The next time he pulls something like this, he'll be sure to make sure that everyone involved is paid off and properly gagged.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    6. Re:Upon reflection... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he was just following the rules and rights one expects of the laws of the US and most US states.

        The problem is that he did not realize that Hawaii is a place where normal rule of law is not really obeyed, or it is ignored depending on if you are a certain color/race, and you cannot depend on your rights being upheld because you'll get yelled at for antagonising other certain colors/races -- which you cannot defend against out loud because it's politically incorrect.

      Oh please, the same thing could happen if he'd done the same in any other state, where controversies abound over the acquisition of land, like New York or California, and Nevada and Florida and Connecticut and Texas and probably every other state, but I'm kinda bored with chasing examples.

      Despite all of your bigoted racist hand-wringing, this kind of controversy is common all over the United States, and likely the world. Heck, you can go into any courtroom and probably see somebody who is thinking that the "normal" rule of law is to be against them, and sadly, sometimes they will be right. And it's entirely doubtful you'll listen when it is happening.

      Or care.

    7. Re:Upon reflection... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      What would be correct would be to invite members of the tribe to come build a village on the land, thus insuring yourself of having a tourist attraction AND a ready-to-work labor force (unemployment among native hawaiians is high- as is homelessness)

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    8. Re:Upon reflection... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It *cannot* be that he didn't know about this before buying his umpty-hundred acres, eleventy-million dollar estate. But here's the real question - if you were gonna have that much of a problem with it, why did you buy it in the first place? Oh, right, money trumps all.....

    9. Re:Upon reflection... by hey! · · Score: 1

      It's getting difficult to be a billionaire prick these day..."

      Maybe, but I think I could manage it.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    10. Re:Upon reflection... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      his "fake" news filter will take care of that in the future...

    11. Re:Upon reflection... by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      "After hiring the best PR professionals in the world and thereafter upon reflection, I decided to release this quite nauseating statement".

    12. Re:Upon reflection... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Upon reflection, Zuckerberg's default position is lost because so many mock social media and those having wealth.

    13. Re:Upon reflection... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Upon reflection, I'm embarrassed to have Eugene as a first name

    14. Re:Upon reflection... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      I will now have some lawyers create a large number of shell companies, all interlinked, but with to real purpose, but impossible to determine who owns what, and pursue the lawsuits using those shell companies, so I can't be directly linked to the lawsuits.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    15. Re: Upon reflection... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell me more about your fragile white tears.

    16. Re:Upon reflection... by sudon't · · Score: 1

      The problem is that he did not realize that Hawaii is a place where normal rule of law is not really obeyed, or it is ignored depending on if you are a certain color/race, and you cannot depend on your rights being upheld because you'll get yelled at for antagonising other certain colors/races -- which you cannot defend against out loud because it's politically incorrect.

      Right. He didn't understand that the "normal rule of law" that he's used to was imposed upon a culture with an entirely different view of property. Sadly, this is still causing problems for the conquerers since, on the whole, they've become a little more aware of these things. But now, the environment may once again become more conducive to cultural imperialism.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    17. Re:Upon reflection... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stinkjude..

    18. Re:Upon reflection... by chipschap · · Score: 1

      Follow-up. He's been using a Hawaiian law firm. He had to have been warned. There's no way they wouldn't have realized the consequences.

      But in today's Honolulu Star Advertiser, Z. is getting praised for rethinking his strategy.

    19. Re: Upon reflection... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being an billionaire prick is awesome! Gets you elected as president :)

      Fuckerberg will never be president because he just don't know how to go full prick. It's useless just having half a dick.

      To be president he needs to offer alternative facts. Explaining your actions is a no no. Just deny and repeat your denial until it's established as truth. All criticism are from corrupt people who's really ugly or bad at their jobs (that's why they are not billionaires.... if they are rich then they are corrupt).

  2. Looks like... by x0ra · · Score: 1

    he got a taste of his own sense of "justice".

  3. I understand, we made a mistake by The-Ixian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now that I understand the issues better, it's clear we made a mistake.

    This just sounds like someone trying to spread the blame.

    Why couldn't he just say "I made a mistake" ?

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    1. Re:I understand, we made a mistake by TodPunk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He's responding because it's a Facebook PR problem, a brand issue, not an actual mistake made by anyone involved. Even this headline is just inflammatory. He's not "suing" anyone in the sense that word conveys at all. He's not taking their land against their will either. He simply can't contact the owner and ask them to sell, because he has to go through the court to figure out who even owns the thing because the owner likely doesn't even know. This situation isn't that uncommon in land real estate either, but for some reason the internet got a hold of poorly worded "issues" and got out the pitchforks.

      I say the internet because that's what happened, but this sort of thing has happened before when papers reported things in odd ways, or a protester had some misleading language in a pamphlet or whatever. It's not unique to the internet. We just seem to do it a lot /more/ now with the proliferation of information and editors/writers with poor reasoning skills.

      --
      This forum Sig is licensed under the LGPL.
    2. Re:I understand, we made a mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say the internet because that's what happened

      Cool, let's convince Mr. Zuckerberg that he is better off without the internet.

    3. Re:I understand, we made a mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the elitist billionaire royal "We"

    4. Re:I understand, we made a mistake by hey! · · Score: 1

      I dunno, it sounds pretty plausible to me.

      Imagine you're a billionaire, and you decide to drop what for you is pocket change on your own personal, private slice of paradise. Your lawyer inform you that there's a problem with isolated plots inside your new land, but he can make it go away. And he's right, from a strictly legal point of view. You bring a quiet title action, pay everyone fair market compensation and as far as the law is concerned everything is settled.

      What your lawyer isn't telling you is that you've just stuck your foot into a generations-long controversy stretching back to a coup by white planters and missionaries against the islands' native rulers. It's potentially toxic to your reputation, which for a man who can afford anything is the easiest thing to lose.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:I understand, we made a mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm more like the internet is better without faceblech

    6. Re:I understand, we made a mistake by ems2004 · · Score: 1

      He is preparing for future run for a public office so did not want to have a heavy baggage..

      --
      ..... best things in life are not so free..........
    7. Re:I understand, we made a mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! Good post. Sounds like you might be a kamaaina.

    8. Re:I understand, we made a mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Help! I hate Facebook but I can't look away!

    9. Re:I understand, we made a mistake by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      It still doesn't absolve him from being ignorant about his own dealings. Yeah, he has people to do these things for him so that he doesn't have to worry about it. I can understand that. But then, once he knew that a mistake had been made, he should have take responsibility. He's the guy in charge, not his lawyers. It's like asking a computer to do something and then spreading the blame to the computer when it obeys you to the letter.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  4. Parse error by BlackPignouf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I parsed
    "Mark Zuckerberg Drops Lawsuits To Force Hundreds of Hawaiians To Sell Him Land"
    as
    "Mark Zuckerberg Drops Lawsuits (To Force Hundreds of Hawaiians To Sell Him Land)"
    instead of
    "Mark Zuckerberg Drops (Lawsuits To Force Hundreds of Hawaiians To Sell Him Land)"

    Can the title really be undestood both ways?

    1. Re:Parse error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I parsed
      "Mark Zuckerberg Drops Lawsuits To Force Hundreds of Hawaiians To Sell Him Land"
      as
      "Mark Zuckerberg Drops Lawsuits (To Force Hundreds of Hawaiians To Sell Him Land)"
      instead of
      "Mark Zuckerberg Drops (Lawsuits To Force Hundreds of Hawaiians To Sell Him Land)"

      Can the title really be undestood both ways?

      No. Additional punctuation is required to get it to be read the second way.

    2. Re:Parse error by Thanatiel · · Score: 1

      Human languages are ambiguous.
      So, yes.

      --
      Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
  5. Re:H-word landowner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Careful there, sister.

  6. Why? by avandesande · · Score: 2

    Wouldn't you just hire a property lawyer and figure this out before you purchase the land?

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Wouldn't you just hire a property lawyer and figure this out before you purchase the land?

      Due process is kind of expensive. Why bother if you are rich enough to pay a fine instead of going to jail? I mean it worked for Bank of America and the new Cabinet Trump is putting in.

      Imagine if the penalty for twenty years of tax evasion was... a coupon for 90% off your taxes? Oh wait, that's the whole "repatriation" plan. And we'll be lucky to get 10% even though the typical slashdotter pays 25-33% or so.

    2. Re:Why? by TodPunk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This was a step in that process. Ignore the inflamed language in TFA, it's inaccurate and makes this out to be something it's not. Most of the lands have been purchased and the ones he can't find the owner to make a deal with he has to go through the court system to work out. Seems boring when we put it that way.

      --
      This forum Sig is licensed under the LGPL.
    3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you put it that way it makes it seem like he's the fool for withdrawing the lawsuits.
      Funny how if you ignore all the arguments against something, that something looks totally reasonable.

    4. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I can definitely see the other side of the argument. Families have been granted land, but no-one has taken active ownership. It's still an important part of their collective culture. Zuckerberg probably doesn't care about the land per se. He probably cares more about the easement. Since he doesn't know who owns the land, pretty much anyone can wander in and out. Still, this isn't without precedent. Many large manors in the UK have these kinds of easements and the very, very wealthy land owners tend to provide marked walkways so that they have some control over the situation. I suspect something similar will be set up.

  7. Time wasted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who's going to pick up the tab for all of the time wasted?

  8. Re:Just do not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    try and build a telescope on your property. You may find that these postage stamp sized parcels of land are home to ancient spirits that science should not disturb. Just burn some incense or tiki torches and bang a few gongs. Pandering to the primitives has really gotten out of hand.

    Tell me about it. There's a freaking death cult that literally, worships a cannibal zombie according to their crackpot book-o-magic. In fact their head is chanting about spirits and how we all need to read, not a holy book, but something called the "twenty-fifth amendment to the US Constitution". Lunatics.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
    http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/an-important-message-from-mike-pence

  9. Another Example by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    This is just another example of the greed and avarice of the wealthy. Zuckerberg is no different than any other billionaire. Just another rich asshole.

  10. Re:Lawsuit sort of made sense... by PraiseBob · · Score: 2

    Because every square inch of land has to have "ownership", and can't just belong nebulously to a community that shares historical and familial bonds? Not everything is for sale, just because you have money. The thing everyone agrees on is this-

    * He doesn't own the land.
    * He wants to buy the land.
    * Many of the current owners do not want to have to fight in court to prove it is their land.
    * Many of the current owners do not want to sell their heritage for some minor payday

  11. some thoughts by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

    I only heard of this recently...

    What I heard is many Hawaiians were claiming this as their own rightful land since it was deeded to their ancestors who never sold it and let's face it - the US screwed Hawaii "bigly" to take them over and make them a state.

    I saw a news report about it a couple of weeks ago and I have no concept of 700 acres. I grew up on a lot that was about a half-acre, so 1400 times the size of my suburban childhood home's front and back yards?

    700 acres is 283 hectares. Nope, that muddles it even more for me.

    My thought was that Zuckerberg should give them a break, but one claimant said they were offered a measly $500 in exchange to giving up being able to at least traverse part of the property like they said they had done for their entire lives.

    I may have seen a biased news story and I'm admittedly biased against Zuckerberg, but I thought he was being an ass for not giving in at least a little - at least for public relations sake.

    And then Zuckerberg sued them? Is he high? No wait, I'm high. If Zuckerberg were smoking the Maui Wowie (or Kauai Kind) he'd be a bit more generous, but he's obviously drunk on his own power and riches.

    OTOH, 700 acres is a little over a square mile (~2.8 sq. km) and I can grasp how big (or small) that is.

    Maybe Zuck anticipated a fight no matter where he bought property and that property is worth fighting for.

    And then some of the people suing Zuckerberg didn't even realize they "owned" the property until it became an issue.

    Who knows?

    I am high, but if I were him, I would buy a small plot of land in the middle of it and instead of building a wall I would manipulate the lava flows so they cut off access to anyone who didn't have a helicopter to get there.

    1. Re:some thoughts by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Maybe Zuck anticipated a fight no matter where he bought property and that property is worth fighting for.

      The fight is not over the 700 acres that he actually bought*. It is over 8 acres that he did NOT buy, but wants to own so that he can have one huge private place all to himself without having to allow anyone else an easement to get to the property they own.

      I am high, but if I were him, I would buy a small plot of land in the middle of it

      Is 700 acres not large enough to do that?

      I would manipulate the lava flows so they cut off access to anyone who didn't have a helicopter to get there.

      Is it not an even douche-baggier thing to do to dump lava onto someone else's property to keep them off of it, than to buy up every piece of surrounding property and try to prevent their access by blocking the easements that are required to prevent just such a thing?

      * although the article reference this time does talk about a great deal of displeasure from the locals about a wall he built along one side of that land.

    2. Re:some thoughts by slew · · Score: 1

      Is it not an even douche-baggier thing to do to dump lava onto someone else's property to keep them off of it, than to buy up every piece of surrounding property and try to prevent their access by blocking the easements that are required to prevent just such a thing?

      It seems like a common thing for rich douche-bags to attempt to commandeer public property like...

      * Vinod Khosla (martin's beach), or
      * Warren Lent, Simon/Daniel Mani, and David Geffen (malibu beach)

      It's not stretch for rich douche-bags to think they can outspend/outlawyer a lowly citizen...

      FWIW this shit happens all the time. Sadly I got to see this when I was young, when my father bought some property to build a house, but unbeknownst to us at the time, a big real-estate developer who was mad that he didn't get the property, quickly bought an adjacent ~1-foot strip wide easement next to the property to prevent access from the nearest street in hopes to convince my dad to sell him the property. Fortunately, my dad was able to negotiate street access through an adjacent subdivision on the other side, rendering his strip-property worthless (a couple years later, he quit-claim titled the strip to my dad to avoid being required by the city to make sidewalk improvements all along his 1-foot wide easement next to street).

  12. Built a wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But the facebag douche still built a wall around his house.

    Wtf? I thought he was a globalist.

  13. Re:So who won exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now some Hawaiians, who may not even know they own small pieces of land can celebrate this instead of cashing in? Seems pretty stupid to me.

    Spoken by a brainwashed worshiper of the house of the mighty dollar... Somethings are worth more than money, maybe you'll see the light some day...

  14. Money Grubbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Rabbi and a Catholic Priest were sitting on a bench in a park on a beautiful day when a young boy and his sister entered the park and began to swing on a swingset near the bench.

    The Catholic Priest tapped the Rabbi on the shoulder and whispered "Do you see that boy over there?" The Rabbi looked over at the children then replied "Yes, I do." The Catholic Priest smiled for a moment then leaned in again and whispered "I'd like to screw him."

    The Rabbi pulled back for a momen looking puzzled. He then leaned in and asked "Out of what?"

  15. Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    5% problems amirite

  16. Native Hawaiians by Spookticus · · Score: 1

    I recently visited Hawaii for the first time a few months ago for business purposes. I ended up staying on the main island (Oahu) in Waikiki for a week which from my observation was the main tourist area ?

    Once you get out of the cities and on the interstate(?) the island is very beautiful. I really enjoyed all the scenery, the fauna and terrain were a spectacle to gaze upon and were unlike anything my eyes have seen before. Really enjoyed the various tunnels and elevated highways that run along the mountainside.

    However, just from my observations I was a bit saddened how the land of the native Hawaiians has been seemingly exploited by Japanese and American business interests at the accommodation of tourist goers. I assume this is because Oahu is where you land when travelling commercially

    So many expensive buildings have been constructed, yet for a lot of those who construct these buildings they will never be able to afford being able to enjoy them with their families. I think this is probably due to most of the unskilled/slightly skilled laborers being filled by Native Hawaiians. Which only makes sense considering the local population. To me, it just didn't seem right that their ancestral home has been moved in upon because of conglomerate interests.

    Regardless of that though, It is defiantly an interesting place to visit. Just have to get out of the cities to really feel what is left of the magic that still exists. I really wish I had time to visit the other islands. If I ever go back, it will be to go camping and hiking. Hopefully with the approval of the Hawaiian Gods.

  17. At least. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    regardless of who he is and how wealthy he is, he has admitted that he fucked up. Personally I don't' believe that an internet "backlash' affected him by more than a couple of coffees a day. Perhaps he now knows the difference between being a man and a gentleman, and that can only be a good thing.

  18. It Takes A Big Man ... by Toad-san · · Score: 2

    to admit he made a mistake.

    Good for ya, Zuckenberg.

    1. Re:It Takes A Big Man ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      to admit he made a mistake.

      Would he have done the same thing if there were no negative publicity?

    2. Re:It Takes A Big Man ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suckerberg still wants their land, douchebag.

  19. I would like to be the first to congratulate him.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    on understanding he is an arrogant fuck that we all hate... and I hope he makes twice as much money as he currently has... as long as it is all in single dollar bills that are each shoved up his ass...

  20. Now they are notice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just build some small structure on the land, if no one complains for 20 years, he can declare adverse possession and claim the land legally.

  21. Zuck is a sociopath. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Between this and the way he stole the idea for Facebook, the way Facebook constantly violates its users' privacy, etc., it's obvious that he's a sociopath. It's only when public outcry gets to be too much that he will backpedal.

  22. keeping people in poverty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Government in the US has created a system of hereditary titles for native Americans and Hawaiians. Under this system, small plots of land end up being owned by sometimes hundreds of owners, making the land absolutely worthless. The system keeps native people in poverty and keeps their land unusable. The system is based on the racist premise that native Americans and Hawaiians are incapable of managing property ownership themselves.

    Lawsuits like this are pretty much the only way right now to return land to productive use. They end up giving the native owners of the land a little cash in return for land that is otherwise worthless. Of course, in Zuck's case, it's also a quite self-serving.

    In any case, what needs to change is the racist policies of the US government that keep people in poverty. This is an even bigger problem for Native Americans living in the continental US.

  23. Zucky Zuck Zuck Love Quest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having had two ribs surgically removed including 1/3 of his intestines, Mark Zuckerberg coilled up in a little-ball and sucked his penis for 24 hours following the rulling that he cannot kill Hawaiian human beings indiscriminately even if they might just per chance be "subsistence livers". Ha ha
     

  24. Re: Lawsuit sort of made sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many of the current owners don't even know that they own the land. And the current owners can't do anything with the land either.

    You're defending a racist US government policy, under the pretext that you're speaking for native Hawaiians.

  25. Microstrategy Online Training by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The above article contains good information. Thanks for sharing
    microstrategy training online

  26. Fucking Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone should really do something about them.

    1. Re: Fucking Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donald?

  27. Re:Lawsuit sort of made sense... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Because every square inch of land has to have "ownership", and can't just belong nebulously to a community that shares historical and familial bonds?

    In theory? Sure. In practice? No. That never works.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  28. Land Grab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All Your Land Belongs To Me. This is not over, peasants.

  29. Still learning to be rich by sentiblue · · Score: 0

    Mark is still a new boy in the gang... he's only been rich few years and doesn't know yet what it takes to sit on top.

    He must have thought being rich gives him power and authority and when those don't abide to him will have to face him in court and the court will eventually rule him prevailed.

    Hell... I dont know what it takes to sit on top either.. but those that have for decades like Gates, Buffet... they don't go pushing people around to get what they want... Mark was specifically stupid to mess with people who have lived on their lands for generations... They don't give a damn about the money that he pays... its the native's way of preserving their family heritage... If he screwed with that, he surely was going to earn the embarrassment that he just did.