Comment by SwellJoe | Hacker News Reader

Comment by SwellJoe | Hacker News Reader

I've ranted about this here before, and I'll rant again. Up and down the coast of CA there's a tremendous amount of public beach made inaccessible by wealthy property owners. Malibu is awful in this regard, with (bogus) no trespassing signs and gates everywhere. I spent a month there, for a conference in LA, and made a point of stomping around on every "no trespassing" beach I could get to, and some of them are hard to get to. But Malibu is not alone.

The thing I don't understand is why police don't simply cut the lock every time Khosla locks the damned thing. It's gone to court, he lost (as he should have), and now he continues to blatantly violate the law. Petty criminals have been shot and killed (thousands of times) over less blatant disregard of a legal order, but a rich guy can get away with a massive theft of a public resource for years without any consequences. Money may not buy happiness, but it certainly buys the right to be a truly awful human being without consequence.

Why can't a citizen simply call the police every time a gate is closed and locked? Send Khosla the bill for a locksmith or whatever it takes to restore access. Cities do it for overgrown lawns (which is harmless, IMHO), and this is causing actual harm to the public good.

> The thing I don't understand is why police don't simply cut the lock every time Khosla locks the damned thing. It's gone to court, he lost (as he should have), and now he continues to blatantly violate the law.

I'm happy to pay for someone to get bolt cutters and put them somewhere nearby for the public to use when needed.

"Break glass in case of affluenza"

Yeah, chain the bolt cutters to the fence...er wait. Hmm.

Some years ago, in Los Altos Hills, a new landowner built a fence across a horse trail easement. The mayor and police chief went to the site and cut the fence open. It can be done.

Finally another use for those huge scissors mayors love so much!

Well as you surely know, residents like to joke that horses come before humans in LAH. Also, the pathway committee seems to have quite a bit of power.

Take a bolt cutter and unlock it yourself, and throw the thing at any of his minions who come out and complain. It seems we've entered a period of lawlessness if one is rich and powerful enough and it's time to push back.

The only interesting question here is: why isn't he (Khosla) in jail?

Because what he's doing is not a jailable offense.

Contempt of court is.

He's in contempt of court. That gives a judge near limitless power, including the ability to jail someone until they comply, indefinitely if necessary.

A judge having "near limitless power," that sure sounds fancy, or scary depending how you look at it. But ok, I'll play: What's it all gonna cost if they decide to wield their limitless power. Financially and/or otherwise. Is it in or against their best interest to pursue?

Because I think a lot of judiciaries are just like companies in the sense of not wanting to draw unwanted attention, risk high costs or worse – having to deal with awkward situations at posh drinking events — think I got that last part from a movie.

It costs a judge absolutely nothing, as it's the judge's job. What does it "cost" when a judge jails a murderer or fines someone with unpaid parking tickets?

The scarier thing to consider is what does it cost not to hold this person in contempt of court? Much of society is built on the justice system being able to do its job and much of that ability is built on court orders being respected. What happens when some rich person sets a precedent of disobeying court orders without consequence?

It costs political/career opportunities and will continue to do so while the potential defendants is/knows the "establishment" of the judges area of jurisdiction.

How can the jurisdiction justify enforcing the law against anyone else if they're not willing to enforce it here?

He belongs in jail.

According to the article the case was appealed and a verdict on the appeal has not yet been issued.

It is often the case that a judge will rule that something must be restored or maintained pending the outcome of an appeal. I got the impression the current order from the court was to not restrict access to the beach; the appeal might change that, but right now the law and its interpretation currently seems to be that he needs to allow access.

Am I misinterpreting the situation? Regardless, the ethics of the thing are clear, to me. This is theft of a public resource. And, I would hope the courts would continue to agree; a billionaire can buy a lot of do-overs in the US legal system, but hopefully, he can't buy the result he wants.

I'm curious. If the route is public, why is it even allowed to have a gate there at all ?

It's not

> I've ranted about this here before, and I'll rant again.

You make one hell of a rant, man. Props.

Can't people just walk around the gate? The beach should be connected to the ocean which should be connected to other beaches, last I checked how those things work.

> The beach should be connected to the ocean which should be connected to other beaches, last I checked how those things work.

People can't walk on the ocean. And while, yes, beaches connect to the ocean which then connects to other beaches, beaches may not connect directly to other beaches, and even if they do, the other beaches may not be accessible due to geography irrespective of legality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com