Mystery company has methodically spent $1B to purchase all the land surround Travis AFB (Martinez: buyer, bankrupt)

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by joosoon

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.

The case is public, I can't believe that you can't access it. First you said that it might be one defendant, I provided proof that there are 6. Then you said you couldn't access the site using the URL I provided, well it's the Eastern District Federal Court Sacramento - go there and google the name of a defendant or complainant., you're no dummy I can't believe that you can't access that case.

[JGC97]

Is this what you're all looking for?

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gf...2023-05-18.pdf

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

The case is public, I can't believe that you can't access it.

I didn't say I couldn't access it. I said your links didn't work and they don't.

First you said that it might be one defendant,

No. I didn't say anything of the sort.

I provided proof that there are 6.

Yep. And that was already known in various news accounts and obvious since the basis of the lawsuit is that landowners conspired to fix prices so clearly there are multiple defendants. What's your point?

Then you said you couldn't access the site using the URL I provided,

Yep. Your links didn't work. They're some weird chrome extension links, not urls, that don't point to anything.

well it's the Eastern District Federal Court Sacramento - go there and google the name of a defendant or complainant., you're no dummy I can't believe that you can't access that case.

And I thanked you in rep for providing the case name so I could look it up and said something else, didn't I? So why are you pretending that I'm playing some game here?

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by HereOnMars

Is this what you're all looking for?

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gf...2023-05-18.pdf

Yep. Thanks.
Was reading it. The text exchanges alone lends a lot of credibility to the lawsuit's premise:

"The reasons for the Conspirators’ conduct finally became clear in the spring of 2023 when Flannery learned, through discovery in separate litigation, that the Conspirators have been engaged in a per se illegal price-fixing scheme to artificially inflate sale prices for their properties.


For example, on July 22, 2022, in an exchange attached as Exhibit A to this complaint, Conspirator Richard Hamilton texted Defendant Kirk Beebe. In his text message, referencing a conversation with Defendant Ian Anderson, Richard Hamilton wrote: “In talking with Ian Anderson, he agrees that the remaining property owners should be in agreement on what we would want to sell our properties. So [Flannery’s attorney] cannot play owners against owners. I think we should have a meeting in the next two weeks to talk about Flannery.” (Ex. A (emphasis added).)


23. Kirk Beebe responded: “Agree. I am talking with your attorney tomorrow . . . .” (Id.
(emphasis added).)


24. Highlighting the importance that Defendant Kirk Beebe placed on this conversation with Conspirator Richard Hamilton, he then took a screenshot on his iPhone, and emailed a copy of this exchange to his father (Kenneth Beebe), Defendant Susan Beebe Furay, and their attorney, all of whom appear to have played a role in the illegal price-fixing conspiracy

And here again is my helpful link from the state of California.

[DiffuseGlow]

Originally Posted by joosoon

It's sort of strange that some posters here are seemingly ok with that.

You're making an assumption.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by DiffuseGlow

You're making an assumption.

So you're changing your tune?
Also, all the references to the former property owners being poor struggling "farmers" is laughable with all the revelations just from that original complaint posted above. As I said, lot's of assumptions but short on facts.

[DiffuseGlow]

Originally Posted by joosoon

So you're changing your tune?

No. That's another assumption. Try for a third?

[joosoon]

Asking a question isn't an assumption. Are you just here to debate minutiae or do you have a point?
You originally said this:

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.

There's significant evidence by the claimant's that these "farmers" colluded to fix their selling prices. There's literally nothing in the lawsuit that looks intentionally frivolous and/or is meant to "bankrupt citizens". So you're sticking with that, right?

[DiffuseGlow]

I'm commenting on what has been reported. Is this fun for you?

[Veritas Vincit]

The way I see it, it's obviously better for it to be some project like this than the Chinese government buying land for espionage purposes (though just how likely that ever was, I don't know, I mean why would you need thousands of acres just for that).


However I feel like it's kind of shady tactics nevertheless. You're using front organizations to buy up land, so you can then go to the state and county authorities with the land already in the bag which you gives you a lot more leverage to push through such a project than you otherwise would have. Smart tactics, but also what you do if you anticipate that your project will be unpopular and highly controversial. Nobody should be able to build a city in this country without the consent of the people around that area - and selling your land to an investment front group does not represent such consent.