Sorry; my post was intended not to go under yours, but under its parent. As to relevance to the the question posted in that message: Just that the Martin Beac

Sorry; my post was intended not to go under yours, but under its parent. As to relevance to the the question posted in that message: Just that the Martin Beach case seems to be an illustration of the fact despite that in general, the wealthy and powerful seem to feel they have a lot more lattitude in flouting various forms of what they deem to be mere "social convention" (you know, pesky things like zoning laws, or 150 years of legal interpretation of status Mexican land grants after California's admission into the Union, etc). So you can count on the fact that if you or I were to decide to squat some piece of public property (based on our feeling that it was really ours anyway), our actions would stand for more than a couple of hours before we got pepper sprayed, put in a chokehold, etc. But when a billionaire venture capitalist does it -- well the courts take 4 years to think about it before deciding that it was, heck, just a "misunderstanding" (as the judge in the Martins Beach case decided that Khosla's property manager acted in "good faith" when they decided to block access to the beach for 4 years without seeking a permit to do so).