Cards Against Humanity sued SpaceX yesterday, alleging that Elon Musk’s firm illegally took over a plot of land on the US/Mexico border that the party-game company bought in 2017 in an attempt to stymie then-President Trump’s attempt to build a wall.

“As part of CAH’s 2017 holiday campaign, while Donald Trump was President, CAH created a supporter-funded campaign to take a stand against the building of a Border Wall,” said the lawsuit filed in Cameron County District Court in Texas. Cards Against Humanity says it received $15 donations from 150,000 people and used part of that money to buy “a plot of vacant land in Cameron County based upon CAH’s promise to ‘make it as time-consuming and expensive as possible for Trump to build his wall.’”

Cards Against Humanity says it mowed the land “and maintained it in its natural state, marking the edge of the lot with a fence and a ‘No Trespassing’ sign.” But instead of Trump taking over the land, Cards Against Humanity says the parcel was “interfered with and invaded” by Musk’s space company. The lawsuit includes pictures that, according to Cards Against Humanity, show the land when it was first purchased and after SpaceX construction equipment and materials were placed on the land.

  • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    So all I take from this is they took your money and did absolutely nothing with it to do anything to protect the land beyond marking it?

    Edit

    Our longstanding reputation as a company that makes outrageous promises and actually keeps them is on the line! We promised we’d use every legal tool at our disposal to protect this land from bullies like Trump and Musk (who’s spending millions to get Trump electedand also wants to build the stupid wall). If we don’t take action now, why would anyone ever trust us again?

    Maybe because you didn’t do anything to actually do what you said…?

    • Whelks_chance@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s their land. What more should be required to stop people from dumping their crap on it?

      By which I mean, not “what would have stopped them?”, as fences, armed guards and tanks may have stopped them.

      I mean, “what is the minimum requirement to ensure land isn’t filled with other people’s, or companies, stuff?”

      For me, if they want to store stuff on some land, they should make sure they own it first.

      • watson387@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        In the heavy construction industry you always make sure you have a local plot of land for idle equipment, material storage, office trailers, etc. before you start a project. You have to pay for that shit though and you generally have to leave it the way you found it or better. You can’t just park your equipment on someone else’s land and expect everything to be OK. Everyone performing any type of large project knows this. This lawsuit would have happened no matter who owned the land.

        • Fedizen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          in many cases large stockpiles have to be permitted. clearing and grubbing usually too. I don’t know the rules in texas but imo this seems illegal and like improperly inspected development

        • MutilationWave@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          You’re right, but this is out in the middle of nowhere. I’m not surprised a megacorp would just dump their shit wherever. It’s probably cheaper paying the occasional fine or court case than going about it the legal way.

        • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Expecting a company that blew up their own rocket pad and falsified EPA documents to think ahead is too much for them apparently.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      They put up a fence around it, and now they’re suing somebody for trespassing on it.

    • njm1314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      You really think a billionaire should be able to take your land and property as long as they think you’re not using it correctly? You really want that precedent? That’s the kind of country you want to live in? Thats thr kind of freedom you want to enjoy?

    • SSJMarx@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      If they put up a fence and mowed the lawn as they claim, then that’s more than what they legally need to do to not be considered absentee owners.

    • silasmariner@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      One might argue that ‘doing nothing’ with land was an extremely good way of protecting it, but one would have to be talking to someone who was operating in good faith if they were to bother to do so…

      • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Just buying land does what? Show a presence, if they mowed it how often like they claimed it wouldn’t have gotten that bad before noticing. Put an actual fence on it, what they use? Some stakes a twine? I’m having a discussion so we can figure these details out, what are you doing than insulting someone for trying to talk?

        This also is t he first time they failed in their expectations, the hole they dug was a failure, they had to constantly modify their claim because they didn’t realize they rules and regulations regarding making. A safe deep excavation.

        I’m trying to discuss in good faith, the fuck is this? I provided a quote to show my particular issue and described it, what part of my comment is not trying to discuss in good faith? If anything you going straight to insulting someone is the one lacking any sort of civility here.

        • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          If I buy land, it’s my land. My use (or lack thereof) is of no consequence to anybody; in other words, if I buy land, you can’t use it without my permission.

          CAH is not in the wrong here; SpaceX is. Yet you’re victim blaming CAH because you think they’re not doing enough to lay claim to their land?

          You’re not arguing in Good Faith. You’re trolling. Good faith would require you actually having understood the situation before making your weak accusations.

        • JackbyDev@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          You’re not discussing in good faith, you’re victim blaming. “If you didn’t want SpaceX to dump stuff on your property you should’ve put a fence up” is victim blaming.

          • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            They said they would do anything possible, I’m calling out they did the bare minimum, or less when they said they would do ANYTHING. This is the extremely important detail everyone seems to be ignoring, they PROMISED to do anything possible, which they failed to do.

            Just because I have a different opinion or see things in a. Different light doesn’t make me arguing in bad faith, that’s a fallacy people use to derail from their circle jerks.

        • Deceptichum@quokk.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Buying land gives them the legal ownership of it, allowing them to stop others using it.

          Why do you assume they need to build something on the land?

          • FireTower@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            The US federal government could simply file for eminent domain on the land (pay the holder what they (feds) deem fair value) and build the wall CAH planned to disrupt.

            • moody@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Their goal was to make it as difficult as possible. Sure eminent domain was a possibility, but they expected it and I imagine planned to fight it.

              • FireTower@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                No I was talking about the base idea of buying land on the border to prevent Trump from building a wall while he was in office.

                  • FireTower@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    It isn’t just as your previous comment on if Elon filed for eminent domain wasn’t because that wasn’t the subject that comment was addressing.

                    The comment I originally addressed was on them buying land to stop it from being used. Which CAH did to prevent a Trump admin from building a border wall. I was pointing out how that their actions in that matter didn’t suit their intended purpose because of the governments ability to seize private land with compensation for public use.

          • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            That did a good job didn’t it? Plenty of ample evidence that worked eh?

            Did I say they need to build anything on it? How did you get that from my comment?

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Why are you complaining about what they did when it’s someone else that illegally used land that they didn’t own?

              If you own a plot of land you’re free to use it by doing fuck all with it, it doesn’t give anyone the right to use it and it doesn’t mean you’re being irresponsible by not doing anything including not putting up a fence, it’s other people’s responsibility to make sure they respect the limit of the property they own.

              • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Yes that can go on the border, and almost every farmer knows to do this to prevent people like hunters from accidentally using your land.

                You can’t just buy land and expect people to not use it, that’s almost negligence for anyone who spent their money expecting CAH to do this, if anything they’ve opened themselves to be sued by the people who spent the money doing this in the first place.

                • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Your thoughts on land ownership are making me chuckle a lil.

                  Guess what, there’s actually a government program in some agricultural areas, that pays landowners money to literally do nothing with their land, so it can act as a sanctuary for wildlife. Doing nothing with land is perfectly legal and sometimes even encouraged.

                  Now, owning and doing nothing with HOUSES is downright immoral, yet we don’t fine those people either.

                  They put up a No Trespassing sign. With Texas castle laws, idk if they even needed to do that and they can literally shoot trespassers on their property.

                • Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Cards Against Humanity says it mowed the land “and maintained it in its natural state, marking the edge of the lot with a fence and a ‘No Trespassing’ sign.”

                  /edit: lmao.

          • cygnus@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Just build the fence underground so people can still walk over it. Easy!

        • stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Just buying land gives complete legal ownership and stewardship to the owner. They’re not obligated to do shit with it, and they bought it exactly so they could do nothing with it: keep it natural and pristine.

          You seem to weirdly be invested in Cards Against Humanity being in the wrong, with the weird takes. They did exactly what they were expected to do- keep it pristine. What gives you any impression at all there were different expectations? Just flat out wrong.

          Your whole comment reads like one of Musk’s alt accounts trying to rub defense lol. If you expressed any semblance of understanding why and how CAH acquired the land before you began with “this isn’t the first time they failed expectations, why didn’t they build anything?!,” maybe you’d get better replies

          • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Just buying land gives complete legal ownership and stewardship to the owner. They’re not obligated to shit with it, and they bought it exactly so they could do nothing with it: keep it natural and pristine.

            Squatters and adverse possession says otherwise… they also didn’t just claim they would keep it natural and pristine, they claimed they would protect it.

            Governments can also force you to sell your land….

            You seem to weirdly be invested in Cards Against Humanity being in the wrong, with the weird takes. They did exactly what they were expected to do- keep it pristine. What gives you any impression at all there were different expectations? Just flat out wrong.

            What? They said they would protect it from billionaires, they failed on that didn’t they? Just like their deep hole they couldn’t do.

            Your whole comment reads like one of Musk’s alt accounts trying to rub defense lol. If you expressed any semblance of understanding why and how CAH acquired the land before you began with “this isn’t the first time they failed expectations, why didn’t they build anything?!,” maybe you’d get better replies

            I do understand how they got the land, why do you claim I don’t?

            They have failed before.

            Where did I say they need to build something? I have gotten better replies, thank you, you’re just a piece of work apparently.

            • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              Squatters and adverse possession says otherwise

              Adverse possession requires someone to use the land in an exclusive and conspicuous manner for an extended period of time without the owner challenging them on it.

              They are literally challenging SpaceX on it, right now at this very moment. That’s the entire point.

            • stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Absolutely bonkers lmao

              Of course imminent domain exists, silly. Yes, the government can force sales. Also squatters can be forcefully evicted through due process by the owner. That’s now what’s happening here. I can’t even begin to understand why it’s relevant.

              Protecting the land means not letting it become part of the failed Wall, and not allowing building/dumping on it. As Elon has dumped his shit in their land, CaH is suing. Thats exactly what protecting the land is, buddy.

              You seem to have a chub for Elon, or a chip against CaH. Not sure which, but you are waaaay off base lol

        • SSJMarx@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          if they mowed it how often like they claimed it wouldn’t have gotten that bad before noticing

          I’m not so sure about this. Say they visited and did maintenance once a month - a construction crew only needs a couple days to trample over an area and dump a bunch of construction materials on top of it.

          I’m sure the legal case will come down to what Texas law requires a person to do with their land to be considered to be using it, and whether or not SpaceX did their due diligence to make sure they weren’t messing up anyone else’s land with their construction. It’s possible that all of this was an accident, but I don’t think that SpaceX deserves the benefit of the doubt.

          also

          the hole they dug was a failure

          lmao it was a hole in the ground that they dug as a marketing gimmick what more do you want.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Why do conservatives never want to conserve anything?

          Not developing land is a good thing for the planet and our species.

          • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            You don’t need to develop land to protect it, farmers use fences, it lets people know like hunters to not use their land. You also kinda need a presence, or even your neighbor will use your l as if they notice you’re never there….

            • MutilationWave@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Holy shit I’m glad you’re not my neighbor. With your understanding in place I’d go out of town for work and come back to you building a palace for your erotic Lego Luigi sculptures on my porch.

              • Therealgoodjanet@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                He sounds like a Zio settler. “This property wasn’t used (for 60 seconds), I guess it’s up for grabs. It’s mine now. Fuck you, you should’ve used it.”

                Edit: added a missing word

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              You know what lets people know it’s your land? A map. Also, county records.

              You know how hunters know not to use your land? They don’t own it and didn’t get permission.

              Seriously, have you never met a hunter before? They’re not a bunch of morons. They don’t want to get fined or arrested or, worse, shot for trespassing.

              Also, this is utter nonsense:

              You also kinda need a presence, or even your neighbor will use your l as if they notice you’re never there….

              The houses on either side of mine are empty. One was foreclosed on, the other’s owner died and no one has taken over the house. I wish someone would use their land. At least the grass would get mowed.

              There are entire towns that are virtually empty. They don’t have people just come in and start illegally developing land and no one cares.

    • fishos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I don’t know why people are downvoting you. At the very least, it seems like they didn’t even check on the land for years. Notice it’s a 2017 photo and a 2024 one. No progress pics in the middle, no “we told them to stop on X and Y date and here’s photos of them continuing”.

      They abandoned the property for years because all they cared about was squatting on the wall being built, which by having the deed they were doing. They didn’t do anything further because that was never their goal.

      So honestly, while what Elon did is shitty and illegal, them trying to claim the some moral high ground by acting like it was an environmental sanctuary is disingenuous. In fairness, the original purpose of stopping the wall from being built is STILL being upheld. Elon’s not building the wall there as far as I can tell. Just storing junk(that CAD should just scrap and sell since it’s abandoned on their lot). Heavy machinery is worth a lot…

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Preserving land in its natural state is that simple, not touching it. Trespassing and using someone else’s property is illegal. What are you arguing here? I can’t just go store shit on my neighbor’s back yard and say, well he wasn’t using it, and he just didn’t want a wall to be built there and I didn’t build a wall so its fine

        • fishos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Did I say it wasn’t illegal? I literally said it is.

          What I’m saying is CAD is pretending they were protecting the environment when in fact all they were doing was squatting a land title. They didn’t actually check on the land at all, which is something you might expect of someone who was actually trying to protect the land and wasn’t just pulling a big publicity stunt.

          So yeah, what I’m saying is the other guy is right: theyre making a big show of saying they care about the land after the fact, but before then did jackcall shit and never even checked on it.

          Elon can be a shithead and CAD could have just been doing a publicity stunt. Both can be true

          • Krauerking@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            They were planning on using the land legally make trunp struggle to build a wall there and leave it naturalized.

            Trunp didn’t build a wall on that land and it was still left to be nature. That’s pretty much 100% success rate on the desired outcome.

            Apparently you may not like nature but that doesn’t mean their use of the land was wrong.

            • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              We promised we’d use every legal tool at our disposal to protect this land from bullies like…

              They did less than that actually, it’s this premise that they broke and is what I was talking about, they made a claim, they didn’t even do the bare minimum to protect it, when they said they would do anything.

              Look at every single discussion that missed this detail and says they did the bare minimum, that’s NOT what they promised to do with the money. Lots of people knew this was marketing and a waste of money, and were pointing this out, they never intended to protect it, just looked everything else they took your money and laughed. And that’s all I said.

              • Krauerking@lemy.lol
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Dude. Legal tool.

                They are doing that now taking Musk to court. That’s the legal tool. They didn’t say they would make it a playground.

                They promised to buy it and use it as a legal slowdown for idiots.

                I don’t know what you want here but you are deeply wrong and seem to just be bitter about something.

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Nah. They bought the land so they could use it for a promotional event.

      And now they are using it for another promotional event.


      In all fairness, CAHcorp (whatever their business name is) are pretty much the epitome of “dumbass white liberals”. Right down to how they are so adamant about “humor” that is just white guys saying racial slurs and talking about dead babies and thinking it is the funniest shit ever. So I can easily see them thinking that just owning the land was all they needed to do because nobody would ever violate the law or ignore their rights.

      I mean, just look at all the replies that boil down to Arthur the aardvark saying “but musk broke the rules!!!”


      Also: This never really would have stopped trump’s wall. Eminent domain would have kicked in (basically what spacex tried) and they would have gotten a pennies on the dollar check and told to go fuck themselves.

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          We promised we’d use every legal tool at our disposal to protect this land from bullies like

          Thats literally what they promised to do with the money they fleeced from people though….

          • Cadeillac@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            We promised we’d use every legal tool at our disposal

            I’m sorry, do they have a cavalry?

            • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              They could rent one, or patrol it more often than they did. They made a claim, and failed to follow through on it, and this isn’t the first time.

              • Cadeillac@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Are you literally refreshing for my reply? Jesus fucking Christ. You guys are insufferable, and have unrealistic expectations. Enjoy always being disappointed in life and may you stub your toe on the way to the bathroom every night

                • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Ironic considering how fast you responded to me.

                  And I’ve only pointed out that there was more they could have done, and they claimed they would do anything.

                  I’m sorry that trying to have a conversation about this upsets you so, but why do people always try to derail conversations that don’t align with their (in this case) objectively wrong views? There is a hell of a lot more they could have done to protect the land, and they claimed they would, and failed on that. Why does this upset you so much?

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        was all they needed to do because nobody would ever violate the law or ignore their rights.

        They are suing the people who violated the law and ignored their rights right now. What should they have done instead?