In case 03-1717 (001717/2003) the Mohonk Preserve was the defendant in a suit by plaintiff Michael Fink.

Curt

Curt,

Please try not to distort the facts. RGold, was talking about a land case involving 150 acres where the preserve was the Defendant. Yes it's true that in case 03-1717 Mohonk Preserve was the Defendant, however, this case was not land related. In fact they were being sued for either Trespass or Malicious Prosecution, I can't recall which.

It's interesting how the preserve does not want people trespassing on their land. In one of the above cases, their head ranger Hank Alicandri on the record states that he would trespass across neighbors land to access other parcels that the MP owned. Of course we will provide a document for this soon.

Thanks,

The Mohonk Preserve Neighbors Association

So in fact the Mohonk Preserve has been the Plaintiff in every single case involving a dispute with their neighbors. This is one the primary reasons the MPNA has been formed. So the MPNA was formed to assist neighbors of the wealthy Mohonk Preserve. The MPNA will be posting documents soon related to specific cases that are completed.

Thanks,

The Mohonk Preserve Neighbors Association

TradJunkie wrote:

Disingenuousness and unfulfilled promises ("coming soon") get you nowhere.
A name and current documents (i.e. not rehashed articles we've all seen years ago) will get you more sympathy.
You might have done better if you had waited till the court decisions you desired came out and posted them then as your first post, without hiding your identity. Now your "brand" is under heavy questioning. That could have been avoided, if you had been more thoughtful.

Hey Tradjunkie,

Try actually reading the articles I posted, the "waterworks" article is from 2009. If that's not current enough for you, we will be posting more recent docs soon. As far as questioning the "brand", you might try questioning the content.

I merely referenced one of the four existing cases found on the "WebCivil Supreme - Case Search" engine. This engine searches ALL civil court cases for all 62 Counties in NYS. Please try not to distort the facts.

Curt

Hey Advocacy Group,

Try actually realizing that the "brand" that you deride is the *only* hook you have to try to get people to read the content you keep touting. So far you've failed miserably at promoting your brand, so people don't really give a shit about your content.

Marc,

Here is what you wrote at the start of this thread in response to the articles that were posted.

"I did check the dates (at least for those that you choose to include) and other than the one recent reference, all the others date from the mid/late 90's and referred to the same handful of cases. Just because you repeatedly bring up the same 2 or 3 cases that have cropped up in over 50 years of land stewardship doesn't represent a pattern of abuse. Actually it demonstrates that conflict has been relatively rare.

Posting undated excerpts of articles that discuss the 15 year old Pardini & Fink case is intentional obfuscation."

In Response, we posted the following cases later in the thread:

1. Index #77-226 oct 7 2003. Mohonk Preserve is the plaintiff and lost.

2. Index #04-525 March 17 2004-2010. Mohonk Preserve is the Plaintiff. This case has just finished and we are awaiting a decision.

3. Index# 05-1722 5-16-2005. Mohonk Preserve is the Plaintiff. This settled.

4. Index#09-2747 2009. Mohonk Preserve is the Plaintiff. This case is current.

It is the MPNA position that Index #95-1012 from 1995, Shawangunk Conservancy v. Pardini/Fink was in collusion with the Mohonk Preserve. So yes the articles withe the exception of the "Waterworks" article are from the mid '90's however, their have been four lawsuits since then and numerous confrontations with neighbors.


While we wait for the outcome of the remaining court cases, the MPNA would like to see the following action taken by the Mohonk Preserve.

1. File a complete survey of ALL lands that the Mohonk Preserve alleges to own.

Currently just a small fraction of the lands of the MP are surveyed and filed.

Hey MPNA,

I posted [what I felt was] a legitimate question on rc.com, but this site seems to be getting more of your attention, so I'll post my question again:

The Mohonk Preserve and the Mohonk Mountain House are clearly two different entities. (One is a for-profit hotel corporation that doesn't allow climbing, the other is a non-profit land trust that welcomes climbing.) However, you have confused the issue by siting ridgeline blemishes and continued development by the hotel to support your call-to-action against the Preserve.

If you group the evils of the hotel with the evils of the Preserve, why doesn't your call-to-action include a boycott on the hotel?

If the hotel is not among your axis of evil, then I should point out that they are a neighbor of the Preserve, and since you represent "neighbors", do you also represent the hotel? Probably not.

So, which neighbors *specifically* do you represent? Certainly not all of them. And why do you obfuscate the issue by including the hotel in the mix?

Hey Jim,

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you, but we were trying to locate some documents that were specific to your question which I will post later today. So to begin with, If you look at our initial post, we state that we are advocacy group for adjacent neighbors of the Mohonk Preserve, and in the event of a dispute we can offer help in retaining legal representation, surveyors, documents etc.. Since the Mountain house is unlikely to ever be sued by the Mohonk Preserve it is unlikely that they would ever need to consult us. The MPNA does not "represent" neighbors but offers help in the event of a dispute. In fact, three of our founders (no Kent was not there) were at the Rosendale Town Board meeting, as well as a private meeting last night in support of a landowner whose property access allegedly was taken away from them by OSI and the Town of Rosendale (The Waterworks Parcel project). This piece of property has been in their family for over 200 years and there is now a lawsuit in the works.
The MPNA understands that legally speaking the Mountain House and the Mohonk Preserve are different entities, it is our belief that the Mountain house has a lot of influence over what the Mohonk Preserve does, and in fact have jointly sued their neighbors.

Thanks,

The Mohonk Preserve Neighbors Association

MarcC wrote: "Just because you repeatedly bring up the same 2 or 3 cases that have cropped up in over 50 years of land stewardship doesn't represent a pattern of abuse. Actually it demonstrates that conflict has been relatively rare."

Hey MarcC,

Here's a new (well old, but yet another) one for you. Index #77-226 Guess who the Plaintiff is? It's from 1977, I wonder how far I can go back with these?

Thanks,

The Mohonk Preserve Neighbors Association