The Problem With Rich Motherfuckers

[Minimalist]

Arrogant criminal fucktards.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...-1.2950124

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg sues Hawaiians into selling their land

Can't have those dirty, little Hawaiians living around you in Hawaii, can you.

[Autumnlicious]

Interesting. He is first attempting to delegitimize existing owners through challenging the lack of paperwork knowing full well that the Hawaiian state has failed to assist poor land owners in keeping documentation up to date.

Then his plan is to divide any unambiguous plots that won't roll over but somehow are connected to his plot through a partition action.

An abuse of the Law that only a rich man can afford to take advantage of.

[Divinity]

One day, some poor man is just going to shoot the rich man who does this to him. Then, we'll finally have gun control at least.

[Shell B]

. . . is that they don't give me their money.

[Minimalist]

Interesting. He is first attempting to delegitimize existing owners through challenging the lack of paperwork knowing full well that the Hawaiian state has failed to assist poor land owners in keeping documentation up to date.

Then his plan is to divide any unambiguous plots that won't roll over but somehow are connected to his plot through a partition action.

An abuse of the Law that only a rich man can afford to take advantage of.

Precisely.  Judicial terrorism.

[Asmodee]

Interesting. He is first attempting to delegitimize existing owners through challenging the lack of paperwork knowing full well that the Hawaiian state has failed to assist poor land owners in keeping documentation up to date.

Then his plan is to divide any unambiguous plots that won't roll over but somehow are connected to his plot through a partition action.

An abuse of the Law that only a rich man can afford to take advantage of.

The US has 3 very distinct legal systems, unfortunately.  There is one for regular people, another which is far better for the one who can afford to buy it and a third for those with power.  Occasionally there is a high profile case where those with power, money or both can't silently slip into one of the more desirable systems, but even then they are not treated the same.

In the system for the masses a crime is committed, evidence is gathered, suspects are arrested and put into jail after processing and bail is set at roughly 20% to 400% of their yearly income.  The defendant usually sits in jail awaiting trail, gets a poor defense from an overbooked public defender who has mere minutes per week to spend on his case and, if convicted, either remains in the jail he is in or goes immediately to the new jail.

In the second system a crime is committed, evidence is gathered, suspects are arraigned, which can take as little as an hour or two, bail, if any, and is set at a small fraction of their holdings.  That person walks free awaiting trial, gets a great defense from a private lawyer and, if convicted, is often once again set free and told to report to jail at a specific time and date, often being given months to "put their affairs in order", completely avoiding the humiliation of prison transport, instead showing up to jail in a limousine.  And it's usually not the same jail as in the first case.

In the third system a crime is committed, some special investigative body outside of regular law enforcement is assembled to investigate, evidence is gathered for months instead of days and, more often than not, there is not enough evidence to go to trial, but the person in power must retire from his position of power in shame.  When then-congressman Mark Foley was found to have contacted underage boys with sexual propositions, that is exactly what happened.  He DID DO IT.  This is not in disputed.  But apparently if you're a Congressman, knowing that you're guilty based on the evidence is "not enough evidence" to go to trial.

And often the laws intended for one system simply aren't applied in another system.  Insider trading is illegal, for instance.  Yet when members of Congress do it their response is, "No, that law is for people.  We're congressmen.  Those laws are for YOU, not us!"

Every level of government, top to bottom, is for sale or lease and it has probably been that way since very near the beginning.  It's just the most blatant in the legal system.  We're all guaranteed justice, but the Constitution doesn't say we don't have to pay for it to get it.  And in many cases the one with the most money to spend has won the case before it has even been presented.  The more money which is at stake, the more likely the rich will be able to buy it.  The RIAA has definitely "bought precedence" many times.  It is exceedingly easy for the rich to drag out court proceedings to drain opponents of all financial resources.  When you run out of money, you run out of justice.  Sure, maybe it costs $10 million now, but once that precedent is set the ruling is automatic in the future.

The entire system is broken and it simply won't ever be fixed.  That's not pessimistic, it's realistic.  It is the rich who currently have all the power and even if you could start a grass roots movement to change it, how are you going to get someone elected when it takes tens, even hundreds of millions of dollars to run for any office?  Who can afford that?  The rich.  So the rich run a system where if you're rich you can simply buy power and if you're powerful you can make sure you never lose it.  Getting the money out of politics, that's not a real thing.  It's a talking point.  It's a buzz phrase that politicians say because they know we want to here it.  There is no actual real movement to make that happen and if there ever was there would be hundreds of fingers in that pie watering it down and adding loopholes before it ever even got to a vote to make sure that the "change" it implemented was really just the status quo in a pretty bow.

I'm not normally an anarchist or anti-government, but in this case I think the system is so incurably corrupt that the only solution is to burn it down and rebuild.  MAYBE term limits MIGHT help after a few decades.  It would at least make sure they didn't have multiple decades to game the system, but I would bet that legacies would immediately be born and the torch would be passed from one jackal to the next so that the change didn't really change much.  We can't hope for any real change when the people with the power to change it are the ones who don't want it changed.  They don't give a damn what their voters want.  They tell you what you want to hear to get elected and then do what they want and you accept that because it's what they ALL do.  Even Obama did it, unless Gitmo was secretly closed 8 years ago and I didn't hear about it, just to name a single broken campaign promise.  I am not anti-Obama.  He was an okay president.  He could have done better if the average mental age of Congress weren't about 1/12th the average physical age.  But broken campaign promises are broken campaign promises, nonetheless.

End rant.  You just HAD to get me started on the rich and the legal system.

[account_inactive]

Absolute cunt.

[Crossless2.0]

Fuck Zuckerberg. I hope armies of FB users drop their accounts. Then where would the prick be?

Oh, yeah. In Hawaii having to occasionally share his air with some of the people who made him ridiculously wealthy in the first place.

Fuck him.

[Jackalope]

A dirty little secret: Zuckerberg is a raging asshole.

Oh wait, that's no secret at all.