Snoodish said:

---

Wrong. The BBC, the landowner, and Rafter D, the tenant, never heard from the pilot, his lawyers or insurance company. Maybe if you read Gutierrez's lawyers response you could get a better handle on the situation. Clearly the pilot's lawyers didn't do any due diligence when they sued because they didn't contact the right people and sued a total uninvolved person who has nothing to do with the land or the retrieval process.

But stay mad and fumbling in your search for a legitimate controversy.

---

The Mayor and the Mayor's lawyers both claimed, to the pilot, that the Mayor was the lessee. Perhaps that confused the pilot's lawyers who took the Mayor's word that he is the lessee of the land in question and had some sort of right to keep the plane hostage. Otherwise the Mayor had no right to keep the pilot off the land in question.

Your right due diligence is too blame.

cslifer said:

---

So the lawsuit is posted on kbtx. Attached is a letter sent by the attorney retained by the insurance company. He specifically says the mayor was contacted several times but refused to allow recovery unless his demands were met. Didn't he deny ever hearing from them? He REALLY needs to get his story straight. It really makes you wonder what else he hasn't been entirely forthcoming about.

---

I think the good mayor done stepped in it.

Pilot needs better lawyers, but that doesn't excuse the mayor's actions.

Didn't the cease and desist order sent to the youtube guy state that the mayor was the lesee of the land as well? Am I getting that wrong?

That is correct

From where I sit, it seems like the pilot's lawyers got confused because the mayor and others involved with this property can't seem to keep their conflict of interest stories straight.

Yes but please ignore that as it messes up their narrative

He knows that, it's been mentioned repeatedly. He's just trying obfuscate.

So he also didn't do his due diligence?

Why is it not a big deal for the mayor's lawyer to get something wrong but a huge mistake if the pilot's lawyer does?

trouble said:

---

So he also didn't do his due diligence?

Why is it not a big deal for the mayor's lawyer to get something wrong but a huge mistake if the pilot's lawyer does?

---

Legally it's not, it's only a big deal on message boards. As I have said many times, this thing will play out in the courts and both sides will get the chance to be heard.

jh88ag said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Ok. It's a 5013c controlled by the city, correct? Maybe they don't need to put this out for bid by law. In fact, I would be very surprised if anything they've done is illegal.

---

I believe the tax return that someone posted earlier in the thread showed it to be a 501(c)(6); but everywhere else, I've seen it referenced as a 501(c)(3).

---

Based on the Form 990 posted earlier by TexasAggie_02, it is a 501(c)6. But here's an oddity. There are three types of 501(c)6's. Those are chambers of commerce, boards of Realtors and, wait for it, the National Football League. The common thread between those organizations is that they are membership based. Bryan Business Council, Inc appears to be none of these. It's stated purpose of economic development seems legit, but not as a 501(c)6.

FYI, I retired as the CFO of a decently sized and well funded 501(c)6. They are allowed to own assets and even make a reasonable profit despite non profit status. The economic development function is handled in different ways in different jurisdictions, often by chambers of commerce, and may be funded, in part, by municipalities.

Either the City of Bryan received very poor legal advice when setting up the corporation, or there are "members"of BBC, Inc that would be interesting to identify. I'm late to the thread and haven't lived in the area in an extended period of time. Just thought I would throw out one more unusual aspect to the whole situation.

techno-ag said:

---

Tibbers said:

---

Didn't the cease and desist order sent to the youtube guy state that the mayor was the lesee of the land as well? Am I getting that wrong?

---

Maybe the mayor's lawyer got it wrong too. I'm presuming he was the one writing and sending any CNDs.

---

Or (since we are playing that game), the Mayor and his lawyer thought that passing the Mayor off as the lessee would give the Mayor some sort of leverage in the plane extraction negotiations.

EliteElectric said:

---

trouble said:

---

So he also didn't do his due diligence?

Why is it not a big deal for the mayor's lawyer to get something wrong but a huge mistake if the pilot's lawyer does?

---

Legally it's not, it's only a big deal on message boards. As I have said many times, this thing will play out in the courts and both sides will get the chance to be heard.

---

Truth.

SPF250 said:

---

jh88ag said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Ok. It's a 5013c controlled by the city, correct? Maybe they don't need to put this out for bid by law. In fact, I would be very surprised if anything they've done is illegal.

---

I believe the tax return that someone posted earlier in the thread showed it to be a 501(c)(6); but everywhere else, I've seen it referenced as a 501(c)(3).

---

Based on the Form 990 posted earlier by TexasAggie_02, it is a 501(c)6. But here's an oddity. There are three types of 501(c)6's. Those are chambers of commerce, boards of Realtors and, wait for it, the National Football League. The common thread between those organizations is that they are membership based. Bryan Business Council, Inc appears to be none of these. It's stated purpose of economic development seems legit, but not as a 501(c)6.

FYI, I retired as the CFO of a decently sized and well funded 501(c)6. They are allowed to own assets and even make a reasonable profit despite non profit status. The economic development function is handled in different ways in different jurisdictions, often by chambers of commerce, and may be funded, in part, by municipalities.

Either the City of Bryan received very poor legal advice when setting up the corporation, or there are "members"of BBC, Inc that would be interesting to identify. I'm late to the thread and haven't lived in the area in an extended period of time. Just thought I would throw out one more unusual aspect to the whole situation.

---

That is why I posted that. I am currently the CEO of a 501(c)(6) and a 501(c)(3). There are significant differences in the tax rules.

Almost like a separate arm of the EDC???? Cuz that's exactly what this looks like to me.

Or to any number of cattle guys who'd love to have a $1 a year lease

An outstanding media question would be "Mr. Gutierrez, as the land leased was solely for your use, why did Rafter D procure the lease?"

Followup: "Being in the cattle business, have you ever seen a 10 yr/$1 per year lease, for almost 200 acres?"

I would like to start an online movement to rename this thread to "De Plane, De Plane". Anyone with me?

$1/year

woodiewood1 said:

---

Jsimonds58 said:

---

doubledog said:

---

EliteElectric said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

I would guess that if the mayor had never called the pilot on January 3rd, that the plane would be gone by now.

---

The circumstantial evidence indeed seems very strong to support this. The pilot found out the mayor was going to submit a claim to his insurance company and then sued for nearly the same amount.

---

Also it sounds to me like the pilot was expecting a "total of the aircraft" he never got, so instead of a new plane he's gonna have to retrieve and fix the old one. He may have been wrangling with his own insurance company for 2 months before deciding to go this latest route.

---

I doubt that.. The insurance would not cover the cost of a "new" airplane.

This discussion does not concern me. I would like to know how a person "known and trusted" by the BBC would get a $1/year lease on 200 acres of land.

FYI: "known and trusted" is called the "old boy network" in the rest of the United States. I thought those days were behind us, in Bryan at least. What I have learned from this whole incident is that the "old boy network" is alive and well in the BCS area.

---

Spot on, the focus needs to be on this bs with the BBC buying land and magically the mayor winds up running his cattle on it through one of his boys who has effectively a free lease.

---

$1 an acre leases are not uncommon. The money is "made" due to the Ag tax exemption savings for the owner. The 196 acres tract of land has a market value of Market Value of $5,314,383 and an Ag use value of
$29,721.

---

Hold the phone.....I thought BBC bought this tract for 12M+

You're saying its market value is less than half?

Please tell me that's a mistake