Shout Box

Who's Online
1 registered (1 invisible), 2 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 10 of 22 < 1 2 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 21 22 >
Topic Options
#60361 - 09/21/11 10:44 PM Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! [Re: Kent]
donald perry Offline
veteran

Registered: 06/27/11
Posts: 1530
Loc: New Jersey
Originally Posted By: Kent
Donald, The Fat Lady has yet to sing. A decision will be issued hopefully within the next three months and one side or the other will then have legitimate bragging rights. At least until an appeal is filed.


OK, so there are three cases, maybe four.

This one has "The title insurer of defendants' property [Advocacy Group / (Fink?)] has submitted an affidavit in support of plaintiffs [Mohonk Preserve] position."

It seems to me that if you cannot support your own case without, doing yourself irreparable damage you have a problem dealing with facts in the first place, and you need to learn to stop picking on the innocent. Advocacy Group seems to be unconcerned with facts running out of plausible conspiracy theories. Furthermore, because Advocacy group does not comment on this information it appears that they wish to be unfair with the facts, that they don't want to come clean. What's up with that?
_________________________
The Mohonk Mountain House and the Mohonk Preserve have done a great job protecting the environment thus far, but ... it's all down hill from here http://youtu.be/9AU8fMo8v4k.

Top
#60362 - 09/21/11 10:49 PM Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! [Re: Kent]
ianmanger Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 04/25/03
Posts: 319
The fact that the fat lady has yet to sing hasn't stopped AG/Chris crapping on about this case to the kingston times and other local rags. Dollars to donuts he didn't tell them about this injunction and they were presumably too lazy to look into the background already in the public record. Despite being composed on Pure Evil, I thought Glenn H sounded pretty reasonable. Worth emphasizing in DPs quote, and as retr pointed out at the time, even AG's title company supported the plaintiff (the Preserve). Still, if the court finds for AG, as long as he doesn't pollute general climbing while gloating, I have no issue with it as he 's been in my ignore list for evah.

Originally Posted By: Kent
Donald, The Fat Lady has yet to sing. A decision will be issued hopefully within the next three months and one side or the other will then have legitimate bragging rights. At least until an appeal is filed.

Top
#60363 - 09/21/11 10:55 PM Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! [Re: ianmanger]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
I understand Ian.

It's just that it seems the merits of these cases will become clearer when a decision based upon evidence submitted and testimony given at trial is issued. Speculation in the interim is just that.

Top
#60365 - 09/21/11 11:07 PM Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! [Re: ianmanger]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
And as for AG approaching the papers, and trying to convince them of the merits of his position, he's simply doing what the MP has been doing for years.

The MP frequently issues very one sided press releases and the local papers often reprint them as news. No investigative reporting on the back story is done as the papers simply don't have the funding or staff necessary to do thorough investigative reporting on some of these issues.

Top
#60367 - 09/21/11 11:34 PM Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! [Re: Kent]
donald perry Offline
veteran

Registered: 06/27/11
Posts: 1530
Loc: New Jersey
Furthermore, Fink says he has already spent "hundreds of thousands of dollars" on legal fees. Why should I wait for him now, what for? In other words, history repeats itself, and we have enough information already to make accurate assessments. There is no Mohonk Preserve conspiracy, and to continue to insinuate such is no longer speculation on your part, but rather slander.

Furthermore, "Ms. Haviland was never a seller to begin with. The mortgage was sold to the Preserve by a third party." I think the thing to keep in mind here is not that the Preserve is an evil entity, but rather that you need to have a lawyer read to you your mortgage and advise you before sign. And after that, well, if you want to break the contract you decided to agree to, then you have no one to blame but yourself. Now if you don't read your contract and you don't go over your deed then you will necessarily come to learn the hard way.
_________________________
The Mohonk Mountain House and the Mohonk Preserve have done a great job protecting the environment thus far, but ... it's all down hill from here http://youtu.be/9AU8fMo8v4k.

Top
#60368 - 09/21/11 11:34 PM Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! [Re: Kent]
ianmanger Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 04/25/03
Posts: 319
Right, but when he shows up here offering his literally breathtaking hypocrisy about respecting closures, he will get called on it..and the granting of a TRO is not 'a matter of speculation' its a finding of the court, albeit temporary. The 1/14/11 TRO quite clearly states that the court wishes to stop AG from tearing down and ignoring posted boundary markers.


Originally Posted By: Kent
I understand Ian.

It's just that it seems the merits of these cases will become clearer when a decision based upon evidence submitted and testimony given at trial is issued. Speculation in the interim is just that.

Top
#60369 - 09/21/11 11:45 PM Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! [Re: ianmanger]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Of course I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is the injunction is designed to maintain the status quo until the case can be argued in court. Aside from legalese, this makes good sense. If two parties both claim a chunk of land, and engage in a legal battle over ownership, it makes sense to keep one of them from altering the land pending the outcome of the trial.

And again for clarity, I didn't mean to say the restraining order, the temporary injunction, was speculative. I meant to say using the temporary injunction to predict the outcome of the case is speculative.

Top
#60370 - 09/21/11 11:47 PM Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! [Re: donald perry]
donald perry Offline
veteran

Registered: 06/27/11
Posts: 1530
Loc: New Jersey
"The accumulation of conflicting claims persuaded Mr. Hagen and Mr. Kelder to sell the land to the conservancy for $37,500 rather than become mired in costly litigation. Mr. LaBudde said he ''never had any suspicion'' the land was owned by Ms. Pardini and Mr. Fink. Nevertheless, he added, ''We recognized we were buying a problem.'' "


You cannot determine anything from what goes on with cases like this by someone winning or loosing, other than that there is no conspiracy.
_________________________
The Mohonk Mountain House and the Mohonk Preserve have done a great job protecting the environment thus far, but ... it's all down hill from here http://youtu.be/9AU8fMo8v4k.

Top
#60371 - 09/22/11 12:13 AM Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! [Re: Kent]
ianmanger Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 04/25/03
Posts: 319
So Kent, status quo legalese aside, is AG a hypocrite or not?

Originally Posted By: Kent
Of course I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is the injunction is designed to maintain the status quo until the case can be argued in court. Aside from legalese, this makes good sense. If two parties both claim a chunk of land, and engage in a legal battle over ownership, it makes sense to keep one of them from altering the land pending the outcome of the trial.

And again for clarity, I didn't mean to say the restraining order, the temporary injunction, was speculative. I meant to say using the temporary injunction to predict the outcome of the case is speculative.


Top
#60373 - 09/22/11 12:23 AM Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! [Re: yorick]
donald perry Offline
veteran

Registered: 06/27/11
Posts: 1530
Loc: New Jersey
It's time to stop the story telling, the jig is up. There are no "strong arm tactics". There is no ongoing *conspiracy against hundreds of "angry" property owners*. These are personal matters concerning people who need to learn to take responsibility for making blatantly risky choices, buying poorly defined properties or else maintaining properties in a poorly defined state assuming that they will remain that way. If you want to take chances go ahead. But when you get hurt own up to it. Don't expect to blame it on others and then have everyone sympathize with you.
_________________________
The Mohonk Mountain House and the Mohonk Preserve have done a great job protecting the environment thus far, but ... it's all down hill from here http://youtu.be/9AU8fMo8v4k.

Top
Page 10 of 22 < 1 2 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 21 22 >


Moderator:  webmaster 
Sponsored