r/interestingasfuck • u/eliseereclusvivre • 1d ago

From 2014 to 2025, Mark Zuckerberg bought over 1,400 acres on Kauai Island and stole any land the natives wouldn't sell him, earning the moniker 'the face of neocolonialism.' r/all

70.7k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

View all comments

Show parent comments

759

u/BODYBUTCHER 1d ago

Couldn’t they just get a land surveyor to properly demarcate the property lines, I don’t understand how Zuckerberg could just steal their land. You don’t even need to go to court for this

921

u/deadletter 1d ago

Hawaii has an important law that says that if your family has traditionally resided there, it doesn’t matter who buys it, you still have to be given access and can reside on the property.

356

u/perldawg 1d ago

so…are you saying the stolen land is land he legally owns but doesn’t allow natives their rightful access to?

142

u/MartyBarrett 1d ago

If he doesn't follow the laws of owning the property is it legally owned? He legally bought it, but he apparently doesn't adhere to the rules of ownership set forth by the Hawaiian govt.

95

u/Chotibobs 1d ago

I think he still owns it legally yes. But in theory the government could punish him with fines or even some sort of eminent domain and seize the land, but they apparently haven’t done so. So yes right now he currently legally owns the land

44

u/Ok_Supermarket_729 1d ago

governments never enforce these things. Some guy in my city keeps blocking a public right of way to a beach, they've told him to stop but they won't fine him or expropriate his property which is what should happen in cases like these when they refuse to acquiesce

11

u/kndyone 1d ago

yep rich people have all learned to just ignore the law it wont do anything.

2

u/Otherwise-Course7001 1d ago

This is different. But you would have to sue for your easement. Easements are extremely common in property rights and Zuckerberg would just provide. The most he came so is make the route inconvenient until you decide to sell to him because you can't deal with it any more.

9

u/KSF_WHSPhysics 1d ago

Yes its still legally owned. If i do some unpermitted maintenance on my property they make me bring it up to code, they dont seize it

→ More replies

4

u/--peterjordansen-- 1d ago

That's not the same as stealing

1

u/Inevitable-Stress523 1d ago

I understand we are supposed to blindly hate billionaires and invent whatever reasoning to explain how they are bad, but if things actually worked this way, it would screw over millions of people who are not billionaires. Imagine if you lost the rights to your home because you didn't get a shed permit.

4

u/UhhDuuhh 1d ago

Not getting a shed permit and stopping the native population from accessing their ancestral homeland are not even remotely comparable.

7

u/Inevitable-Stress523 1d ago

If he doesn't follow the laws of owning the property is it legally owned?

I am just responding to this statement.

Also we should give natives back legal ownership of their land if we actually give a shit about them.

2

u/PhonyUsername 1d ago

What's so special about ancestral homeland? Can I just go in a house my grandad used to own? Seems like bullshit magical thinking.

2

u/UhhDuuhh 1d ago

Was your grandfather’s family and his entire community plagued with diseases spread by an invasive force that killed 90% of everyone he ever knew and was his home forcibly taken from him by that occupying force that also overthrew his government and established a new government that took away his rights and forced all the children in his community into reeducation camps where they were beaten if they used their native language?

If so, I will likely support your right to enter your ancestral home.

6

u/PhonyUsername 1d ago

That's like everywhere on the planet. We should parse land due to DNA results and resegregate by ancestry?

→ More replies

2

u/MartyBarrett 1d ago

He should allow the people access to the land if they are legally allowed access to the land. If he refuses he should face penalties, but he's rich so he won't.

2

u/Intelligent_News1836 1d ago

What does happen, if you build something without planning permission? Do they just make you take it down?

62

u/Treetokerz 1d ago

Yeah cause stealing land is illegal and these people are insane

36

u/aimless_meteor 1d ago

Sorry which people are insane here?

21

u/Iblockne1whodisagree 1d ago

The people saying he stole the land. You can't just steal land and land rights are fairly easy to identify with a survey. Attorneys in Hawaii would be doing pro bono work if a native person's land was stolen by Zuck. The lawsuits would be guaranteed money for the attorney and the land owners who had their land stolen by Zuck.

23

u/MolehillMtns 1d ago

Wow. so amazingly confidently incorrect.

"stealing" means doing illegal and shady things to buy land that he's not supposed to be able to buy. exploiting loopholes, and using his lawyers (who are way better an more expensive than the ones here). to disenfranchise the families who lived there for generations.

like: if he buys everything aroung your land and doesnt let you through his to get to your- who's is it really?

he gets a pristine view so he gets what he wanted, and the family gets nothing.

just because he got his name onto a deed doesn't mean he didn't steal.

5

u/AanBvoider 1d ago

"stealing" means doing illegal and shady things to buy land that he's not supposed to be able to buy.

no it doesn't and you can't just change the definition of words to suit your preference

what illegal things did he do to buy the land?

-7

u/Iblockne1whodisagree 1d ago

and using his lawyers (who are way better an more expensive than the ones here).

You're telling me that lawyers from the mainland US are more effective in court in Hawaii than local Hawaiian attorneys? That would be the first time ever that out of state lawyers are better than in state lawyers.

like: if he buys everything aroung your land and doesnt let you through his to get to your- who's is it really?

That's illegal in every state.

just because he got his name onto a deed doesn't mean he didn't steal.

Unless he unlawfully put his name on the deed then by definition he didn't steal it.

4

u/MolehillMtns 1d ago

Watch the Jon Oliver bit on Hawaii and get back to me.

I'm glad you can sit in your armchair thousands of miles away and tell me how it works where I live.

You also probably don't understand the history of native persons, the difficulty of the record system here 100 years ago, or any of the other layers that make up these islands.

At least say you will look into it before stomping and demanding "that simply can't possibly be!"

Or block me. Idgaf. You aren't important.

-2

u/Iblockne1whodisagree 1d ago

Watch the Jon Oliver bit on Hawaii and get back to me.

I'm not going to watch a satire TV host and get my information from an entertainment show.

You also probably don't understand the history of native persons, the difficulty of the record system here 100 years ago, or any of the other layers that make up these islands.

My grandmother is 100% Hawaiian. I think I know a little bit.

At least say you will look into it before stomping and demanding "that simply can't possibly be!"

Get your information from a better source than a political satire show. You're just saying "I saw it on TV so it must be true!"

→ More replies

-6

u/Dav136 1d ago

Jon Oliver is a comedian, dude

→ More replies

7

u/WutUtalkingBoutWill 1d ago

But the poster above says that even if the land is purchased the natives are still allowed access, so what is it? How are they insane if they at legally allowed access.

-2

u/Late-Assist-1169 1d ago

Its called "I dont like zuck, so i am making up an unflattering headline"

10

u/WutUtalkingBoutWill 1d ago

And what's wrong with that? Fuck all these billionaires, the more people start shitting on all these cunts, the better, people need to wake up.

2

u/throwthisidaway 1d ago

And what's wrong with that?

I'm not saying the title is wrong, but as a general statement:

These people do enough shit that's wrong that we don't need to make up crap. Virtually every billionaire has done horrible, horrible things. Shit on them for that.

1

u/PippityPaps99 1d ago

Yeah no one is defending billionaires, bud. The point is you don't just get to make up shit because it's toward someone we all don't like. What are you, 14 years old?

There's easily a 100 other, probably far worse thingto criticize this asshole for. Even on the same very topic

He didn't "steal" land, he purchased property from a commercial real estate developer and then filed quiet title lawsuits but saying he "stole" the land is disingenuous.

I'm guessing no one here is actually going to read about the actual situation so , there's that.

→ More replies

3

u/audaciousmonk 1d ago

And yet the entire Hawaiian islands were stolen…. When the US helped overthrow the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893 through military support of a coup, and later annexed the territories

6

u/Iblockne1whodisagree 1d ago

And yet the entire Hawaiian islands were stolen…. When the US helped overthrow the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893 through military support of a coup, and later annexed the territories

And women couldn't vote or own land at that time. Do you think we're living the same as we did 1893?

3

u/audaciousmonk 1d ago

And yet the HHCA provides legal protections for native land access based on ancestral / traditional use

As for are we living in 1893….? I don’t know anymore, since the Republican Party took away abortion rights and seems hell bent in eroding pretty much all progress on civil or individual rights. Dragging us all kicking and screaming back to the fucking dark ages as they eradicate education, science, and a long list of other shit

2

u/Iblockne1whodisagree 1d ago

And yet the HHCA provides legal protections for native land access based on ancestral / traditional use

So how did Zuck steal it and the HHCA didn't provide legal protection or help to the people whose land was "stolen" by Zuck? Is it because he didn't really steal it?

→ More replies

0

u/EntrepreneurLeft8783 1d ago

But women can vote now, yet the land remains annexed, so what is your point?

2

u/Iblockne1whodisagree 1d ago

But women can vote now, yet the land remains annexed, so what is your point?

The land wasn't stolen the same way we aren't living in 1893.

→ More replies

5

u/Icyrow 1d ago

on top of that...

literally, he bought it, from someone who lived there. someone allowed him to buy the land FROM THEM.

if i go into a shop and buy a ps5, i'm not stealing it. there are some oddities due to the law of "if your family resided there, you can always go back" (fuck know how that is supposed to work, i'd imagine it's largely a way for locals to steal from people like zuck and protect them, but if they owned it and sold it...)

8

u/saintsfan 1d ago

Yeah I’m confused about that law. So if you sell family land that was resided on, you can just show back up and claim you still live there even though you sold it?

5

u/Disordermkd 1d ago

Brother... Please take a few minutes to read and process this before giving shit analogies. Zucc didnt buy it FROM THEM, lol. Colonialists came and took the land from natives, and this land is government owned and government sold. "THEM" just have extra rights because they're natives.

-2

u/Icyrow 1d ago

you bought a house in the US? or trying to?

you've stolen land from natives. COLONISERS TOOK THAT LAND FROM THEM.

you're a piece of shit for buying (STEALING) it.

fwiw, i don't believe the above, just making a point.. i can't imagine many people in the comments actually thinking that about their lives/homes.

fwiw, the decendents who owned packets of the land due to ancestors were forced to sell (at a very good price), land that was unused for generations, suddenly getting millions.

→ More replies

→ More replies

26

u/-AC- 1d ago

Yeah he kind of did... Hawaiian laws over ways to claim ownership is messy with multiple ways people could have a claim.

Zuck actually "sued" people whom his very own attorney thought had claim to the land he purchased to legally to pay them off for their claim.

6

u/Treetokerz 1d ago

This all seems overly complicated. He should of just bought land in Texas or something for his cattle farm.

2

u/onlyAlcibiades 1d ago

Yes, he owns the land he stole.

8

u/cownan 1d ago

Lol, I can't tell what's sarcasm anymore

1

u/yourstruly912 1d ago

It seems so but It has to be framed the most obnoxious and confusing way possible

→ More replies

201

u/02bluesuperroo 1d ago

So what you’re saying is they didn’t/dont own the land. He cut off their legal access to it?

281

u/-AC- 1d ago

Claim to land ownership can be made in multiple ways in Hawaii. Some people owned the land he purchased without even knowing they did.

Zuck even tried blocking people from the beach touching his land, which is also illegal in Hawaii as "the public" owns the beaches except for military bases.

68

u/StarintheShadows 1d ago

Sounds like the next time Zuck’s in Hawaii the locals need to organize a giant beach party!

23

u/uno_dos_3 1d ago

35

u/Confident_Advice_939 1d ago

Zuckerface is just a smug spoiled kid, what do you expect?

65

u/CruelJustice66 1d ago

As someone local to Hawaii AND worked as a military civilian: NO. Not even the military can block access to the beach as it is public property.

The best they can do is ask the public walk around or hurry through the property (like at Pililaau Army Recreational Center out in Waianae) to reach the beach.

Under no circumstances is even the military allowed to block access to the beaches.

29

u/--peterjordansen-- 1d ago

That's not correct. My boat was in Pearl for 14 months and going around the barrier would immediately be met with an MA coming to get your ass. Military beaches are restricted to civilians. That base can have any amount of nukes on it at any time based on what submarine is ported there.

6

u/Crafty_Enthusiasm_99 1d ago

Incorrect. Just look at entire beach sides in Kauai near Nepali coast kallai is military encampments

6

u/-AC- 1d ago

Some restricted areas i thought in PMRF but I know they removed restrictions from most there.

1

u/BrokenVet8251 14h ago

As someone that was in the Navy and stationed in Kaneohe, you’re wrong. There is no public beach access to the beaches on base unless you’re sponsored on base by someone.

2

u/Crafty_Enthusiasm_99 1d ago

To be honest the law seems badly written to benefit both parties. Blocking beach public access though is illegal in almost all states in the US. Look at Ritz Carlton in Half moon bay for example

1

u/JesusSavesForHalf 1d ago

Isn't Fuckerberg one of the thieves that did the exact same thing in California?

1

u/tspoon-99 1d ago

When we were in Kauai (June ‘24) we made a point of going to “Zuckerberg’s beach.” He absolutely had a uniformed security guy ride up on an ATV and act all bowed up, staring at us through binoculars. We had a nice time, and he didn’t actually do anything to interrupt us.

You have to find the little jungly path, but it’s there. The public access is maintained by a committed group of locals.

2

u/No-Comfortable9480 1d ago

How did he try to block beach access?

19

u/-AC- 1d ago

Built a 6 foot wall around his entire property... you cannot block public access to the beaches in Hawaii.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/17/mark-zuckerberg-hawaii-estate-kauai-land-rights-dispute

1

u/No-Comfortable9480 1d ago

There’s still access via trail. Similar to many beaches in Hawaii

9

u/DelightfulDolphin 1d ago

Do what they did to colonizers in Puerto Rico. Mob came out and disassembled the wall w a little threat of violence thrown in. Was aabsolfuckinglutely glorious.

2

u/-AC- 1d ago

Yeah... after he got in trouble for it... he also had security bothering people on the beach.

1

u/randomname560 1d ago

Did he get sued for this? Or did it somehow fly under the radar?

1

u/-AC- 1d ago

I believe local government got involved... there was a lot of protests at the time

46

u/redthrowaway1976 1d ago

When you “own” land in a western legal sense, you really own a bundle of rights to that land.

These other people also had rights to the land, as granted by law. No different than Zuck.

28

u/02bluesuperroo 1d ago

But it sounds like the land has a different owner who also has legal right to access the land, likely not as a result of native rights, but as a result of having purchased that right.

39

u/AlarmingAerie 1d ago

More like back then nobody had papers of who owns what land, because Hawains didn't treat land ownership like the colonialists did. So when colonialists came they just applied their own rules and took advantage of it. Pretending like giving access to hawains was a good compromise to feel better about stealing the land. And now they don't honor that deal anymore, cause these billionaires have zero morals.

-4

u/simon7109 1d ago

Billionaires aside, if you would buy land in Hawaii and someone would come to you that they used to live there, would you give them access free of charge?

14

u/redthrowaway1976 1d ago

If they have the legal right to do so, by what right are you denying them?

6

u/AlarmingAerie 1d ago

That's exactly the problem. Their way of treating land ownership is incompatible with current legal system so they got shafted.

They didn't just live there, they owned the land.

→ More replies

→ More replies

14

u/FeRooster808 1d ago

Hawaii has only been a state less than 100 years. Nancy Pelosi was a teenager when it became a state. As such native people are very much still there much like native Americans only the colonialism is much more recent.

Native Hawaiians have many rights like native Americans do though they aren't federally recognized as indigenous. There is some argument they should be. I leave that decision to them. But if they wish it i think they should be and Oprah, Zuckerberg and the like should have their properties returned to the Hawaiian people. They can afford the loss.

→ More replies

1

u/King-Rhino-Viking 23h ago

Your family has lived upon land for generations. In fact your ancestors have lived upon this larger island for hundreds and hundreds of years. Colonialism happens and down the line a dude comes by with a piece of paper and says he owns it.

Who is the rightful owner?

96

u/rick_regger 1d ago

We got the "Wegerecht" Here in Austria where you are partially allowed to use private "Wege"(path?) even when you not own them or have alternatives after you used them for several decades (as example when the prior owner allowed it)

33

u/I_voted-for_Kodos 1d ago

This is a law literally everywhere. Otherwise any rando could buy a square meter of land on either side of a road and set up a toll booth.

14

u/rick_regger 1d ago

not sure if you could buy a single squaremetre of land from a residentland, technically possible but cause the land is categorized into units from the local gov practically impossible, corruption aside.

that wegerecht applies for "neighbors" (afaik) and not every random guy that thinks he wants to walk there.

5

u/anyansweriscorrect 1d ago

They're not talking about using a road or sidewalk. This is more akin to using a path through your neighbors backyard. In the US, you'd get a gun shoved in your face. In other places, it's protected. See also UK right to roam.

4

u/Hands 1d ago

Well no, because they wouldn't own the road... and this is not the law everywhere, at least in the US I believe this is typically codified as an easement, but if you don't have an access easement you aren't legally allowed to just trespass on your neighbor's land even if there's no other way to get there.

Maybe you meant to say it's the law literally everywhere that has reasonable property laws. In a lot of Europe you're allowed to travel across other people's undeveloped land (or even camp, forage, etc) as long as it's in a transient manner, in much of the US you are not only not legally entitled to do so... but can legally be murdered by the property owner for trespassing.

2

u/I_voted-for_Kodos 1d ago

Right of way laws exist, in one form or another, literally everywhere, including the US. An easement is one of those forms.

→ More replies

1

u/cashleyborin 1d ago

We call that an easement in the US

1

u/govunah 1d ago

An easement or right of way if its outlined in a deed or other agreement.

We also have adverse possession where you can use and maintain a parcel or part of one for a period of time and if no one says anything it becomes yours. In most cases it's abandoned ally or property set aside for a street that was never built but abutting owner cares for the property. In my state the time is 10 years but you can't adversary possess state property but in must cases they'll sell it fairly cheap.

1

u/cashleyborin 1d ago

Sure, but that’s not what the person I was replying to was talking about. Also, an implied easement doesn’t have to be in writing.

1

u/lailah_susanna 1d ago

"Right of way" is probably the most literal translation, but in the UK they have an even more liberal right called "right to roam".

1

u/DiscoBanane 1d ago

In France and I guess most non-anglo countries this goes even further.

Trespassing doesn't exist. You can go literally anywhere, except in a building where someone has residence (but garden is okay). It's legal and you have to leave only if asked.

1

u/Practical-Log-1049 1d ago

Easements, we have them too

5

u/DrMooseSlippahs 1d ago

That's not likely true. We do have a law that requires access to sites of cultural significance. But that's not a family claim to the land forever.

4

u/captainbling 1d ago

That should be an easy court case to win. Here’s the fence. I can’t get in.

3

u/Juus 1d ago

Hawaii has an important law that says that if your family has traditionally resided there, it doesn’t matter who buys it, you still have to be given access and can reside on the property.

Dumb question here, but why is this law important? Can you make it make sense for me? Seems kind of bullshit to me.

2

u/Visual_Shower1220 1d ago

I think the issue then becomes: fuckerberg etc. calls the cops on someone visiting their rightfully owned land. Cops come out arrest the "trespassers" which forces them thru the legal system with fines etc. Issues goes to court, rules in favor of the natives but then drags it's feet doing literally anything like returning fines/removing the arrest. Rinse lather repeat until the natives have been arrested or pushed off their land enough times they literally get pissed off and unheard more than they already are. Cause the police aren't gonna have every persons name on a list of "okay to be on x land" they're gonna arrest/detain and deal with that later, we all know who piss poor of a job US cops do.

5

u/Tonythesaucemonkey 1d ago

So if I was a native I can sell my land, get a shit ton of money, and still squat on the land?

5

u/Curly_Shoe 1d ago

Well the price you get will be lower than a shit Ton of money. Lots of squatters makes the price go down. So he Kind of double-scammed them as He didn't pay the real price but still got Private access.

3

u/CorrectPeanut5 1d ago

Very few own land free and clear. Home ownership among the native population is on the rapid decline. Dropping over 5% in the 2010s and trending to do the same in the 2020s.

They aren't allowed to squat, but they do have the right to visitation. And you can't own beach shore. That doesn't stop his goons from chasing off anyone who dares get near his land.

4

u/Elite_Jackalope 1d ago

What is this law called, and does it work with anything?

I.e. I can sell you a car but retain full possession and use rights without your consent?

11

u/JungleBoyJeremy 1d ago

Look up Kuleana Rights.

And it’s not like selling a car. Hawaii history is a much more complex thing.

1

u/Ndmndh1016 1d ago

Ok that doesn't answer the question of why then, is Zuckerturd able to steal said land?

1

u/The_Moustache 1d ago

That's not even just a Hawaiian law, that's just an easement.

1

u/BigDeezerrr 1d ago

I don't understand how that law is expected to work. So if I purchase land and build a house someone can just show up and do whatever they want on my land because they had an ancestor there once? That seems to directly contradict the concept of owning land.

2

u/deadletter 1d ago

That’s correct - you need to start with the assumption that even though it’s an America state, it has a culture with different norms and ideas about ownership, enshrined into law in Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920 and settled I case law in Public Access Shoreline Hawaii vs Hawaii County Planning Commission (1995).

Note that this is undeveloped land, so specifically Yucky Zuckerberg trying to buy a pristine island and put a fence around it.

1

u/BigDeezerrr 1d ago

I get that but it seems like they're trying to have it both ways. Either don't let people buy land because they don't share the same concept of property rights or don't let people on land bought by someone if they don't want them to be there. Taking the money and then not recognizing the land is owned just seems rife for conflict.

1

u/deadletter 1d ago

You seem to be imposing a western view of property ownership to the situation, but Hawaii is a mixture of that value system and another, which is protected in Hawaii law.

1

u/BigDeezerrr 23h ago

I'm saying lets remove the western view of property ownership completely if that's what the people of Hawaii want on their island.

Maybe I'm misreading it and they've always had this hybrid ownership system, but I interpreted your comment as we showed up and forced them to start accepting money for property rights. It should be one or the other instead of two conflicting concepts being law simultaneously

1

u/deadletter 22h ago

From whence does ‘should’ derive? Law? Bible? Religion? Philosophy? Your feelings? Utilitarian optimizing of happiness?

Should doesn’t even make sense when one realizes there’s no shared basis.

1

u/Whiterabbit-- 1d ago

so you can sell your ancestral land and still retain the right to access and reside on the land?

2

u/deadletter 1d ago

Ownership the way we think of it only began with the wholesale destruction of the kingdom of Hawaii. So they never sold it in the first place, and have their right to be there - not build houses, but can camp, stay for periods, fish, hunt etc - because of ancestral tradition and access. Kuleana rights someone called them, and I posted the names of the cases/laws I found to someone else, but on phone now.

1

u/Whiterabbit-- 1d ago

Oh. Makes sense. We are trying to keep two overlapping traditions alive.

1

u/Wide_Combination_773 1d ago

Pretty sure that law requires someone to have actually physically resided on the land within X years of a claim to it from a relative/descendant. Otherwise any Hawai'ian can claim private ownership rights to any land in Hawai'i, technically (lets set aside the arguments from anti-colonialists who agree with this interpretation, for a moment).

Under the current system of property laws in the US - property laws largely derived from older English common law - if nobody has lived on the land in decades, how can you rightfully claim it if you don't have some form of other legal title to it?

1

u/2JZ1Clutch 1d ago

This requires enforcement of the laws. That's not exactly enough vogue as of late.

1

u/PSUVB 1d ago

This has literally nothing to do with the land Zuckerberg bought.

The law that has nothing to do with Zuckerbergs land also doesn’t say you can reside there. It says you need to be given reasonable access.

1

u/yourstruly912 1d ago

So he actually bought the land?

1

u/bert0ld0 1d ago

So even zucko cant block access, no?

1

u/smurferdigg 1d ago

That’s a pretty weird law. Like who sells it and who would buy land if some people can just show up and camp out cos it’s their land too?

1

u/[deleted] 21h ago

So, essentially, there is no property in Hawaii. This kind of flies in the face of constitutional property protections. Can the buyer continue to have access to his money that he gave to the sellers?

1

u/deadletter 21h ago

This is slippery slope fallacy - when one owns unimproved land in Hawaii, people who can show traditional and ancestral access to that land for camping, hunting and fishing need to continue to have access. It doesn’t invalidate all transfer of money and property to have a caveat to exclusive use.

1

u/NoEntertainment483 1d ago

Geez, why would anyone ever want to buy land in hawaii then?? Like I buy it but then any descendants from all time (which would boom in numbers with each generation) could just come live on it??? That's nuts.

5

u/Kckc321 1d ago

I think that’s the point…. Hawaii is extremely desirable, and not very large.

2

u/NoEntertainment483 1d ago

Sure I get that. It’s the 13th most densely populated. But other states are more densely populated and don’t have rules like that. Just as a land owner that would be a hard pass to me. It might be pretty but no way are people I don’t know who I have no control over just randomly living on my land. Montana is very beautiful. I’d rather go buy there and not have that sort of hassle.

1

u/deadletter 1d ago

You can’t live live, but you can go, fish, camp, stay some amounts of time. Someone else in this hugely branching thread said they are called Kuleana rights

1

u/NoEntertainment483 1d ago

Still… what if the person is like a child molester or something. They can just come camp sometimes at my house?

1

u/deadletter 1d ago

I believe it’s applicable to undeveloped land, so if you have ten square miles of land and somewhere on it this whataboutism chimo is hanging out for periods - not full time occupancy - then yes.

94

u/fury420 1d ago edited 1d ago

Part of the problem with these large purchases in Hawaii is historical partial ownership of small parcels within larger estates via family lines, which gets super complicated generations later when the ownership stakes are unclear.

As I understand it, there's lots of situations where majority ownership & control of the property is known, but there's small portions where partial ownership stakes were not formally documented in real estate records, so the buyers have to hire investigators and try and track down all the descendants of someone a century ago and determine who has what fraction of ownership.

It's like a puzzle, they may have assembled 7/8ths of ownership but the remaining 1/8th might be split between dozens of people with 1/64th or less ownership, some of which have been unaware of their stake for generations.

Edit:

On Lanai the buyers even went so far as lawsuits against a bunch of unidentified potential John & Jane Doe descendants, so that they could use the courts and discovery process to assist in determining if additional partial owners actually exist.

23

u/JAK3CAL 1d ago

If you aren’t aware of your stake for generations… do you actually have a stake?

14

u/fury420 1d ago

If actual lawyers reached out tomorrow to tell you that your great grandfather was Hawaiian royalty and that your grandfather inherited a 25% ownership stake to hundreds of acres of his lands in Hawaii, I bet your family would be thrilled... no?

In some cases the stake may be spread among many descendants today, but depending on the family tree there also might only be a handful surviving descendants.

12

u/Legionof1 1d ago

I would hang up on them because the Nigerian prince that told me the same thing thing cost me 10k.

7

u/JAK3CAL 1d ago

If that was the case it seems like it would be pretty clear ownership. By your own words, this isn’t the case

4

u/fury420 1d ago

It would only be clear if parentage and ancestry was known, accurate, etc...

4

u/JAK3CAL 1d ago

You just said in your example an exact individual and percentage 😂

4

u/fury420 1d ago

Indeed, the kind of previously unknown details that could be uncovered by professional investigators tasked by a billionaire with figuring out the living descendants of Hawaiian royal families.

Maybe one of the Hawaiian Princes that were educated in the west fathered a child that's not in the history books, and DNA testing uncovers another branch of descendants?

3

u/RoomExpensive5458 1d ago

Descendants of Holocaust survivors are still having things Nazis stolen from their families returned to them. This isn't that different. I'm not saying Native Hawaiians were some perfect altruistic society, but their culture and way of life was radically disrupted by colonialism, and that's why they don't know what stake they have. Due diligence should be done to help them figure it out imho.

194

u/why_gaj 1d ago

Shit like that happens every day. Don't even need to be that rich to do it, your target just has to be so poor that they can't afford litigation.

49

u/BODYBUTCHER 1d ago

Yeah but this is something a little more plain and clear, the government should have everything already parceled in their records and the land surveyor is just reaffirming those records

2

u/Otherwise-Course7001 1d ago

It's either a civil matter or a criminal matter. All property rights cases are civil matters. Civil matters require you to sue

1

u/whiskey5hotel 1d ago edited 20h ago

the government should have everything already parceled in their records and the land surveyor is just reaffirming those records

I am not so sure this is true. If your great, great, great grandparent owned some land, each of the descendants could have a very small ownership stake, which may, and often, is not registered.

→ More replies

124

u/Meisteronious 1d ago

Soooo, there was a bunch of small parcels gifted from royalty (as is the origin of ALL Hawaiian land), and some of those gifts were lost through time - people dying, passed and poorly documented, etc. Zuck and his millions of dollars in lawyers fees consolidated these and hunted down the lost deeds and fenced off access - see the documentary for those details.

I remember when it happened out there, and it was just another thing no one could do anything about.

-20

u/BODYBUTCHER 1d ago

Oh, Zuckerberg found the deeds. Still scummy by zuck the cuck, but this is also on them. These people sound like sovereign citizens and just expect the world to bend around them. Realistically, they would have to go through the local squatting laws and say that they are the lawful owners and request transfer of the deed if they have proof they’ve been there a long while

59

u/NeoWereys 1d ago

On them? We Come up with made up rules, go on their land, take their land, and then, criticise them for not having preemptively complied with said rules?

5

u/audaciousmonk 1d ago

For real, is disappointing how ignorant people are about how the US “acquired” the Hawaiian islands

-2

u/BODYBUTCHER 1d ago

These people are Americans cosplaying as an independent nation

11

u/That49er 1d ago

Do you have any semblance of knowledge of the history of Hawai'i or are you just an ass

4

u/Cars-Fucking-Dragons 1d ago

I genuinely don't understand this native stuff. Sure your ancestors were living here however many centuries ago. But you weren't. They shouldn't ask for special rights and provisions if they also enjoy life as regular citizens.

6

u/NeoWereys 1d ago

You mean to say Hawaii exist since the... 18th century?

10

u/BODYBUTCHER 1d ago

the kingdom of hawaii doesnt exist anymore and hasnt since then. stop trying to justify not having to follow the rules just because you once were not part of the USA. i cant believe i have to defend following the laws of the nation you reside in just because something was once different

11

u/To6y 1d ago

You're not actually defending any laws, though. You're just making assumptions and then blaming native Hawaiians for not conforming to them.

8

u/BODYBUTCHER 1d ago

Theyre still americans following american laws. idk what youre trying to say, like because theyre "native hawaiians" they follow different laws.

5

u/Bannedfruits 1d ago

Basically, these families held land based on a historically recognized law. No one else wanted the land or had ever challenged them for the land, so many of these owners had no need for a document saying it was theirs. Then Zuck did some legal shenanigans and took it. That’s not their fault they didn’t prepare for the eventual arrival of a selfish billionaire. In a rural, slow place like that, it hardly seemed like an inevitability that someone would want that land until fairly recently.

Hawaii has different land laws than the rest of the U.S. It’s a relic of Hawaii Kingdom law. Many of the land parcels in question were granted by the Kuleana act of 1850, which is still legally recognized for some private land ownership in the islands. What Zuck did was go through a “quiet title” process to challenge families’ historical claims to parcels held based on the Kuleana act. Many of these families did not have modern titles. The land was legally theirs and basically undeveloped and only accessed by them for personal use. Many didn’t even know there was a title to claim, as the state did a poor job of keeping owners updated with records or even educating the locals about this type of ownership. Then Zuck comes, challenges their ownership, spends millions more than these combined families could afford in legal fees, and ends up with a ton of pristine land, which he then proceeded to encase behind a wall. So it’s not as easy to blame the locals as you assume.

5

u/To6y 1d ago

What I'm trying to say is that you're making quite a lot of assumptions, but you're not actually defending any real laws.

The comment is only two sentences. It should be pretty easy to parse out.

2

u/NeoWereys 1d ago

So when a country takes over, it is alright to clear out all previous culture and ways of living?

9

u/BODYBUTCHER 1d ago

no but its something you have to live with regardless unless youre willing to die for it

1

u/RipredTheGnawer 1d ago

What an asshole

2

u/NeoWereys 1d ago

If this happened to where you live, would you hold the same opinion? Or perhaps you'd be yourself willing to die for it? If you had previous rights of lands given to you by American law, but a new country would invade and put you out of your property, for example.

→ More replies

1

u/Curly_Shoe 1d ago

Richard Gere has entered the chat

-1

u/I_voted-for_Kodos 1d ago

Whether it's alright or not is beside the point. That is the reality of the situation. Crying about how it's not alright is not going to change that.

2

u/NeoWereys 1d ago

But is it a reality? Does the culture really disappear?

→ More replies

→ More replies

1

u/denigma01 1d ago

there's a lot of information on the illegal ovethrow of the Hawaii kingdom by US marines in 1893.

-2

u/Narcan9 1d ago

Like those pesky Palestinians trying to keep their land from the New York Jews.

3

u/OHaiBonjuru 1d ago

Or pasty Americans denying Native Americans the land they lived on for millenia before the American colonisers arrived

3

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

2

u/ptoki 1d ago

Aaaan the smartasses you are arguing with will have no answer for: "show me the source of every piece of the land zuckcuck claims he owns, accoridng to the law there should be perfect continuity and paper trail of who own each piece of land"

→ More replies

6

u/BDiddnt 1d ago

I have a feeling… You are way under the age of experience to be talking about this shit that you're talking about

In fact the shit you just said it so utterly fucking ridiculous only a child could say it mentally or otherwise

5

u/BODYBUTCHER 1d ago

you act like these people don't live in the united states and have to follow the law too

7

u/Acrovore 1d ago

Do you know how Hawaii became a state?

6

u/TestProctor 1d ago

I’m always shocked by how many people don’t realize that indigenous people weren’t just “conquered” or whatever, but that many groups made deals, signed formal treaties, and had laws passed on their behalf over the course of the nation’s history.

The fact that the United States often ignored those deals, violated treaties, or flouted those laws has screwed many of them over and apparently helped this idea that they “only get what we let them have” or something, but no American (or person, really) who believes in justice (or honor, fairness, the law, etc.) should be anything but disgusted by it and furious when it continues.

1

u/Acrovore 1d ago

Annexation of the sovereign State of Hawaii arguably turned us into an Empire.

3

u/TestProctor 1d ago

There is a fascinating book about this sort of thing, and the introduction uses the interesting geographical & historical position at the start of WWII as the initial example. Goes from the “western territories” to the Louisiana Territory to “Indian Country” and beyond in a look at the US expansion.

It’s called How to Hide An Empire

https://preview.redd.it/260b2xdcwgce1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f5673bda0fd6767c949516406dcebe27f04d77d1

2

u/makingstuf 1d ago

Wow

18

u/RLDSXD 1d ago

Zuck just needs to challenge it in court, and poof, court is necessary and the people with less money lose.

4

u/Noir-Foe 1d ago

Right of way and easement laws. Not sure about Hawaii but if their land is land locked by others without an easement, they might just be locked out. There are ranches in TX where the oil companies use helicopters to get to land locked proprieties because a land owner won't let them pass over land.

2

u/BODYBUTCHER 1d ago

this makes sense, id be a bit miffed about it too

1

u/Noir-Foe 1d ago

Also, It could be that they do have legal right of way or an easement but they don't have enough money to fight someone like Fuckerberg in court to use it.

13

u/ensui67 1d ago edited 1d ago

That’s because he didn’t steal it. People here are misinformed. What happened was that there was a landowner who had majority ownership like 95%+ of the land and was the one who maintained and paid for the taxes of the property for the many years they had it. There was a small % technical ownership(some had 0.026% ownership of one of the four parcels, another had 0.45%) by some other family members, so, in order to make sale go smoothly and officially, a lawsuit was filed to establish who actually owned how much and how much people will or will not get paid out. The other owners either were never really a part of maintaining the property, nor knew about their ownership. So, people who really didn’t have much say in the matter came out of the woodwork cause a billionaire is involved and want their cut. Throw in some history of colonialism and we got some good opinion pieces. The reality is just more boring and a matter of real estate business that is often seen with establishment of title ownership.

18

u/mindfungus 1d ago

Can you remind me again which land surveyor worked with Native Americans over the last several centuries?

5

u/PMMEURDIMPLESOFVENUS 1d ago

Huh? The same ones the survey the rest of the land. You don't have a gotcha here, sorry.

2

u/username1543213 1d ago

Yeah. A lot of the far lefts points are exactly this 😂

3

u/Nearby-Elevator-3825 1d ago

I don't understand how someone can't understand why people with ridiculous amounts of wealth can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want. Especially nowadays.

Laws, zoning permits, property lines.... None of that shit matters if you have oodles and oodles of money.

1

u/KazranSardick 1d ago

You are correct.

5

u/Soliusthesun 1d ago

Natives of Hawaii mostly passed down land rights verbally because everyone did that and it was accepted amongst them. Our laws don’t work that way and he was able to hire high powered lawyers to steal away all that land from their owners because they didn’t have anything in writing. It’s sad.

10

u/BODYBUTCHER 1d ago

These people are Americans

4

u/Soliusthesun 1d ago

Yeah that’s common knowledge.

4

u/alien_believer_42 1d ago

Because Hawaii was coup'd and forcefully stolen

3

u/BODYBUTCHER 1d ago

ok

1

u/ptoki 1d ago

The hole in this logic is: He also has no trace of the ownership of the land as it begins somewhere and for the said plots of land there is no document number zero saying "US took over the whole ownership of all land and the lot x,y,z was then passed to person B...

1

u/Soliusthesun 1d ago

True, but they don’t have the money to fight him and their state government has failed to protect their rights.

→ More replies

2

u/reggiethelemur 1d ago

He didn't. What actually happened has been very twisted over the years.

2

u/Chalky_Pockets 1d ago

I'm struggling to find a way to put this in a way that doesn't seem snarky, but the only way I can put it is snarky so I'll just have to leave it as is and trust that you know I'm not trying to be snarky.

You can't put the words "couldn't they just" in front of a potential solution to what to do when you've been buttfucked by a billionaire. The answer is always "they've thought of that and it didn't work."

1

u/RaceMaleficent4908 1d ago

Trough some legal loopholes he forced the properties to be auctioned

1

u/Altruistic_Film1167 1d ago

, I don’t understand how Zuckerberg could just steal their land

momomomoney

1

u/ammo317 1d ago

Surveyor here. This was my thought as well. Also, fuck that guy.

1

u/MAXtommy 1d ago

Because he didn’t. Squatters with no deeds or payments for the land think it’s theirs. So when legally bought the left runs with “it’s stolen”.

→ More replies