Mystery company has methodically spent $1B to purchase all the land surround Travis AFB (Sacramento: sale, attorney)

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by DiffuseGlow

So, these are the individuals attempting to bankrupt citizens who sold them their land, by suing them after the fact and alleging they "colluded" to lowball them on pricing? Unbelievable.

Once more, how do we know any of that is true? Based on what details?
If you were buying something for one price today, and then it's four times as much tomorrow, and you found out that a group of sellers you were pursuing got together and said let's make it cost more for these guys, that's at a minimum unethical. It's also very likely actionable.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by joosoon

I'm well aware of the lawsuits since I'm the one who first mentioned them here. Lawsuits aren't equivalent to threats though.
And these so-called "threats" are literally based on rumor. Read that quote from Giaramendi again: "In fact, that has happened to at least one family that I know of and I’ve heard rumors that another family...". That's hardly "in fact" at all --quite the opposite.


I can find no links to the actual complaints though, can you? It's easy to dismiss the lawsuits as trivial without actually seeing the details. What we do know based on reporting, is the already inflated $5k/acre price ballooned to $20k/acre as things progressed. Based on nothing else, I'd wager that the buyers wouldn't have sued if they didn't think the complaint wasn't at least superficially valid.

Here are the actual complaints chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/akveaqawbvr/Brief%20in%20support%20of%20MTD%20Flannery%20claim s%204885-2461-2981%20v.4.pdf I count 6 defendants signing.

FAIRFIELD — A developer that has purchased thousands of acres in Fairfield has filed a new lawsuit aimed at farmers that own land on Travis Air Force Base. It's been a months-long saga. A corporation with some secretive ties and backing has tried to buy up over 50,000 acres of land in the area around Travis Air Force Base. Some say it's not just an economic move but an issue of national security. The fight for land near Travis Air Force base is now heading to court. "They did what I think is the most outrageous lawsuit I've ever heard about and that is they have sued six landowners for refusing to sell their land," said Congressman John Garamendi. https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/n...on-travis-afb/

What is valid about a developer agreeing to buy land for x amount of money and then having a change of heart because they think they got screwed? If someone offered you a million for your house and it's worth half of that are you obligated to give half back to the buyer?

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

No, I don't have their names but that's a silly ask.

Huh?
I'm saying, we don't have the details of the complaints (the lawsuits), and without them, you're just guessing at a lot of information.

What is valid about a developer agreeing to buy land for x amount of money and then having a change of heart because they think they got screwed? If someone offered you a million for your house and it's worth half of that are you obligated to give half back to the buyer?

Again, what are you basing this on? Without some sort of outline of the individual lawsuits, neither you nor I know what controversy is/was being disputed in first place.

[joosoon]

Helpful link for people who don't believe that collusion is a real thing and totally illegal.

[MechAndy]

These new buyers no doubt have a huge advantage over the sellers when it comes to litigation and it’s costs to all involved.
This is more than enough to put the screws of possible financial collapse to these farmers.
How many people (farmers) do you think can afford a year or more of constant litigation without going bankrupt?
Yeah, I don’t think I’m a fan of the way this group is running things with their blatant disregard and contempt for these farmers.
Not my kind of liberal values.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Huh?
I'm saying, we don't have the details of the complaints (the lawsuits), and without them, you're just guessing at a lot of information.

Here you go:

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/akveaqawbvr/Brief%20in%20support%20of%20MTD%20Flannery%20claim s%204885-2461-2981%20v.4.pdf

Originally Posted by joosoon

Again, what are you basing this on? Without some sort of outline of the individual lawsuits, neither you nor I know what controversy is/was being disputed in first place.

It's a request to dismiss filed by 6 defendants in federal Court, Sacramento CA

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Huh?
I'm saying, we don't have the details of the complaints (the lawsuits), and without them, you're just guessing at a lot of information.

Again, what are you basing this on? Without some sort of outline of the individual lawsuits, neither you nor I know what controversy is/was being disputed in first place.

You responded to one of my posts that I had edited apparently after you opened it, it includes a link to the motion of 6 landowners who are requesting dismissal of the lawsuit filed by the company that bought the land. If I'm reading this correctly you now want the entire lawsuit, well it's public info and I can't see any reason you can't look it up but here is the initial filing chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zdpxdejmlpx/Flannery%20Associates%20-%20ED%20California%20-%202023-05-18.pdf

[joosoon]

Those links don't work but I'll see if I can find any copy of the actual complaints (i.e. the lawsuits from the buyers which allege collusion). From what I understand based only on news reporting, the suits came after it was discovered that some of the sellers got together and decided to uniformly set prices of their land, far beyond what other sellers had been letting it go for. It's the collusion part that's sticky. Sure, landowners didn't have to sell anything if they didn't want to and can ask whatever price they see fit. But this assumption that the buyers are being greedy is just that. If a group of sellers banded together to fix prices against a single buyer, that's not ok, hence the lawsuit. I think the NYT article said some of these suits were settled already too.


It's sort of strange that some posters here are seemingly ok with that. Using someone else's analogy, if you were shopping for a specific car, and one dealer called all the others in the county and said "hey if sleepy2 comes in, make sure you tell them the price of a Corrolla is $____ and nothing less", then that's illegal.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Those links don't work but I'll see if I can find any copy of the actual complaints (i.e. the lawsuits from the buyers which allege collusion). From what I understand based only on news reporting, the suits came after it was discovered that some of the sellers got together and decided to uniformly set prices of their land, far beyond what other sellers had been letting it go for. It's the collusion part that's sticky. Sure, landowners didn't have to sell anything if they didn't want to. But this assumption that the buyers are being greedy is just that. If a group of sellers banded together to fix prices against a single buyer, that's not ok, hence the lawsuit.


It's sort of strange that some posters here are seemingly ok with that. Using someone else's analogy, if you were shopping for a specific car, and one dealer called all the others in the county and said "hey is sleepy2 comes in, make sure you tell the price of a Corrolla is $____ and nothing less", then that's illegal.

The links work for me, but maybe it will be easier for you to find it this way:

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/ca...cv00927/428401

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by MechAndy

These new buyers no doubt have a huge advantage over the sellers when it comes to litigation and it’s costs to all involved.
This is more than enough to put the screws of possible financial collapse to these farmers.
How many people (farmers) do you think can afford a year or more of constant litigation without going bankrupt?
Yeah, I don’t think I’m a fan of the way this group is running things with their blatant disregard and contempt for these farmers.
Not my kind of liberal values.

Same as above and throughout the thread, you're making assumptions about the lawsuits without the benefit of knowing the details of the complaints. It's being assumed the suits were frivolous and filed solely to create protracted litigation but nobody claiming that here can point to anything concrete to show that's what happened.


I'd rather reserve judgment until I know the details.