Plane update

149,846 Views | 1154 Replies | Last: 4 mo ago by maroon barchetta
GSS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
March 16th letter from Gutierrez's attorney....
Aggieland members critical of the debacle better watch out
"....which was sensationalized by uninformed internet bloggers. Mr. Gutierrez never prevented Mr. Borrel or his representatives from retrieving his plane from the BBC property. Any reporting to the contrary is false and is actionable defamation."

https://wtaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/LaPistolaCattleLawyerLetter031623.pdf
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
[You have been on this board long enough to know that we do not allow that type of posting on here. This is the last ban that we will give that will be less than a week to anyone that insults other posters or is rude when posting on this thread. That is the warning for every poster on this thread. -Staff]
davido
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG


You should keep calling people childish names. It adds so much to your argument.

[Please use the flag option but do not quote posts that need to be edited or removed. Thank you. -Staff]
dallasiteinsa02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That press release makes me believe the story even more.
Hornbeck
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dallasiteinsa02 said:

That press release makes me believe the story even more.


Press release from the guy who said Gutierrez was the leaseholder, and that Gryder engaged in reckless disregard to the facts of the matter. When, he was the one engaged in reckless disregard to facts.
trouble
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Makes you believe which story?
Marooned_n_Aggieland
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GSS said:

March 16th letter from Gutierrez's attorney....
Aggieland members critical of the debacle better watch out
"....which was sensationalized by uninformed internet bloggers. Mr. Gutierrez never prevented Mr. Borrel or his representatives from retrieving his plane from the BBC property. Any reporting to the contrary is false and is actionable defamation."



And poll taxes don't prevent citizens from voting.
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
JMac03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rex Racer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
GSS said:

March 16th letter from Gutierrez's attorney....
Aggieland members critical of the debacle better watch out
"....which was sensationalized by uninformed internet bloggers. Mr. Gutierrez never prevented Mr. Borrel or his representatives from retrieving his plane from the BBC property. Any reporting to the contrary is false and is actionable defamation."

https://wtaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/LaPistolaCattleLawyerLetter031623.pdf


If one does not wish to be defamed, perhaps it would be wise to actually set the story straight. Particularly if one is an elected official.
TexasAggie_02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So he admits to be the sole point of contact with the pilot, instead of referring him to Rafter D or BBC.
DannyDuberstein
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That letter is pretty hilarious. "We promise the mayor didn't try to shake him down, but he did advise him of his desire to recover $269,000"
doubledog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rex Racer said:

GSS said:

March 16th letter from Gutierrez's attorney....
Aggieland members critical of the debacle better watch out
"....which was sensationalized by uninformed internet bloggers. Mr. Gutierrez never prevented Mr. Borrel or his representatives from retrieving his plane from the BBC property. Any reporting to the contrary is false and is actionable defamation."

https://wtaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/LaPistolaCattleLawyerLetter031623.pdf


If one does not wish to be defamed, perhaps it would be wise to actually set the story straight. Particularly if one is an elected official.
I am sorry it had to come to this... As has been said, transparency is key to good governance. Lesson learned?

DannyDuberstein
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Talk about truth being a defense to defamation made easy. We can't know for 100% certainty that he said "you can't get your plane unless you pay $250,000", but the letter makes it clear Gutierrez wants $269,000 and any reasonable person could make a quid pro quo inference even if he didn't outright say it was quid pro quo. One could easily see how that could be received that way on a phone call.
localag88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Can anyone explain / defend the assertion that the plane being present in the middle of a large pasture frustrates the cattle working process in any way?
The problem with people that don't get it is they don't get that they don't get it.
GSS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
localag88 said:

Can anyone explain / defend the assertion that the plane being present in the middle of a large pasture frustrates the cattle working process in any way?
Especially as the cattle were being "staged / held" at that location, due to its proximity to the Rafter D operation (on FM60). Allegedly due to the cattle being penned a couple of days (although the pens look to small to hold them all), that completely wrecked the AI and embryo transfer schedule...and a mysterious bull dropped in from somewhere (according to Rafter D / Dorn) , that "messed things up".

Surely the owner of this mysterious bull should be held financially responsible....but wait, when the longhorn herd routinely wandered onto neighboring properties, AND public road ROW's, the response by Gutierrez was "this is a fence out county, it's your burden to keep my cows in their pasture" (Brazos county Commissioners were consulted about this).
And those adjoining landowners (and the plane owner) had no idea that Rafter D held the lease...why would they, as La Pistola was the only known user/lessee.
Another Doug
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If a distracted cow is worth suing for $269,000 I wonder how much the mayor is suing his cowboy with the fake identity that stole his cows a few weeks later.
EliteElectric
How long do you want to ignore this user?
localag88 said:

Can anyone explain / defend the assertion that the plane being present in the middle of a large pasture frustrates the cattle working process in any way?
I by no means know any of the actual particulars or claim to know them, but I would imagine an airplane landing on Harvey Little League's fields during games would cancel games for the day and maybe for the next few days or weeks. All of the emergency vehicles and investigative teams and their vehicles would upset things for a few days, not to mention all the shook up kids, parents and coaches who probably were a little freaked out by what just happened. If those days were the championship days the little leaguers would have a pretty good claim that the pilot, and his own confessed gross negligence, caused injury to those players, their families and the league itself.

It's not everyday a plane crash lands in a field full of cattle and cowboys in the process of a genetics operation, so none of us are really experts in this matter. That's why I have said I will reserve judgement until all of the facts come out.
Another Doug
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
In that case I'm sure the pilot would happily repay the field rental cost. So by my calculations the equivalent damages in this case would be 1/365 of a dollar.
doubledog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
EliteElectric said:

localag88 said:

Can anyone explain / defend the assertion that the plane being present in the middle of a large pasture frustrates the cattle working process in any way?

It's not everyday a plane crash lands in a field full of cattle and cowboys in the process of a genetics operation, so none of us are really experts in this matter. That's why I have said I will reserve judgement until all of the facts come out.
I can see where the damages could be high. That is what insurance is for. Make a claim with the plane owners insurance first. Lesson learned?

Jsimonds58
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Man he sure sounds like a fun neighbor
BiochemAg97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
localag88 said:

Can anyone explain / defend the assertion that the plane being present in the middle of a large pasture frustrates the cattle working process in any way?


Doesn't seem like the continued presence would be an ongoing issue. I don't think anyone is claiming that given the amount is not increasing each week the plane hasn't been moved.

The landing and response could disrupt operations at the time. Assuming you have a narrow time window to harvest, the crash may have disrupted operations to either harvest eggs/embryo in field or gather the cows and move to facility for harvest of eggs/embryo to an extent that you couldn't harvest.

The presence of a bull in the pasture would disrupt operations too. So plane can't be the only responsible party if the bull was there. Unless maybe the plane crashed through the fence allowing the bull in. Still, if fence out rules, then bull owner wouldn't be responsible either as RafterD would be responsible to keep the bull out.
EliteElectric
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Doug said:

In that case I'm sure the pilot would happily repay the field rental cost. So by my calculations the equivalent damages in this case would be 1/365 of a dollar.
+ any financial, punitive or emotional injury to players/coaches/family/spectators
GSS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In case you missed the Eagle article, March 19
Plane in pasture..
Snippet from the article, don't want to violate copyright rules...
-------------------------------------------
Since January, Borrel said representatives from his insurance company, who did not respond to The Eagle as of press time, have tried to access and retrieve the plane. Borrel said their requests have been denied or not responded to.
"It's not that they haven't tried, because my understanding is that they've tried pretty regularly," Borrel said.

A Bryan Business Council statement said neither Borrel nor his insurance company contacted the council or the company leasing the property following the emergency landing, and adds once the business council was made aware of a social media debate about the plane's retrieval, the council contacted Borrel's insurance company and requested the plane's removal no later than Thursday. However, the plane wasn't retrieved.

Borrel said he wasn't aware until March 10 that Gutierrez isn't the owner of the land where his plane landed.
Borrel's attorney, Don Swaim of Cunningham Swaim LLP, did not provide additional comment as to when Borrel's representatives were put in contact with the Bryan Business Council, or why it has taken so long for the plane to be removed.

Borrel said the FAA wants to look at his airplane to find out what happened to the engine, but it's still in the field. Removing the plane is not a simple procedure, either, Borrel said; permits must be obtained, a moving company must be scheduled and the wings must be removed and put on flatbed trucks.

"It's not as simple as going and picking up a car and taking it to a shop," Borrel said. "It's a little more complex than that."

Clifford Dorn, who runs Rafter D Genetics LLC, a private cattle company specializing in artificial insemination and embryo harvesting, currently leases the pasture where Borrel's plane landed. He said no one representing Borrel had contacted him or Rafter D since the emergency landing, about getting access to the property to retrieve the plane.
In April 2022, the Bryan Business Council agreed to a grazing lease that includes the pasture where the plane landed to Rafter D. Gutierrez is a client of Rafter D and had cattle on the property for artificial insemination and embryo harvesting at the time of the emergency landing, according to a BBC statement.

The Bryan Business Council statement said the council does not have a contract with Gutierrez, nor was the council aware that Gutierrez was a client of Rafter D.

Dorn told The Eagle that Gutierrez has been a longtime client of his, and their project to send embryos to Brazil had been underway for more than a year. Dorn said Gutierrez's cattle were synchronized for the breeding program. When the plane made its emergency landing, Dorn said the cattle had to be rounded up into a small, wooden pen on the property's fence line near Jones Road because FAA officials didn't want the cattle near the plane.

Dorn said the cattle were kept in the pen "for an extended period of time" and noted a neighbor's bull broke in and "messed up the whole program." Dorn did not elaborate. It's uncertain how long Gutierrez's cattle were in the pen. As a result, the contract was canceled. Both Borrel and Dorn said fences around the property were not damaged during the plane's emergency landing.
"If they would've picked up the plane right away, within the first week or two, there wouldn't have been any problems out there at all," Dorn said. "If the cows would've been free in the pasture, none of this would've happened. If we could've continued with our program, it wouldn't have happened. There wouldn't have been any issues."


Another Doug
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If a plane emergency landed on my little league field that would have been the highlight of my childhood.
AggiePhil
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
GSS said:

In case you missed the Eagle article, March 19
Plane in pasture..
Article is behind a paywall.
EliteElectric
How long do you want to ignore this user?
doubledog said:


I can see where the damages could be high. That is what insurance is for. Make a claim with the plane owners insurance first. Lesson learned?


Yeah that's why upstream I said it smells like he was hoping for a total from ins. he never got. The fact that they are concealing the carrier and only divulging the agent, and neither agent nor carrier is saying anything makes me think the pilot may have either -

1- not had insurance/or the proper insurance, and/or
2- not been forthcoming with his own insurance company, and/or
3- also being in an ongoing dispute with his insurance co and it's representatives.

It's wild speculation by me (hey I want to have some fun like everyone else on this thread ), but I know insurance companies can be tough to deal with. So maybe Mr. Pilot has multiple fronts he's fighting on. It would make sense to me that if all of the proper stuff was in place the insurance company would want that aircraft removed ASAP to avoid storage or lien claims. The fact that "apparently" the insurance company is not too concerned with their insured's plane sitting in a pasture in Bryan TX seems odd to me.
OnlyForNow
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So from your, seemingly educated perspective, at least on this one issue.

The plane causing property damage is akin to a car causing property damage? Even in an emergency situation?

I guess, I never really thought of it that way, I was just under the silly impression that property damage wouldn't even come up... why I thought that I have no idea. But to think that the plane physically caused more than a few thousand dollars of damage to fences or the pasture is a little suspect to me.
EliteElectric
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OnlyForNow said:

So from your, seemingly educated perspective, at least on this one issue.

The plane causing property damage is akin to a car causing property damage? Even in an emergency situation?

I guess, I never really thought of it that way, I was just under the silly impression that property damage wouldn't even come up... why I thought that I have no idea. But to think that the plane physically caused more than a few thousand dollars of damage to fences or the pasture is a little suspect to me.
I don't know if the plane did or did not cause property damage. As for the "emergency situation", I doubt a plane crashing is held to a "lessor" standard than an auto, in fact I would think since it's markedly harder to get a pilot license than an auto license they would be held to a greater standard. If the brakes fail on my truck and I rear end you I am still liable. If my brakes fail and I drive into a pasture to avoid hitting you I am still liable for any and all injury, either physical or monetarily that the crash caused. If my truck was left on the side of the road or in a pasture after the wreck my insurance company would want it towed somewhere ASAP to avoid any further injury.

Full disclosure I know zero about aircraft surety so I may be way off here, but I would assume if all was up and up pilot's surety would want that aircraft removed and an accident report from FAA ASAP. The "apparent" lack of interest from them is very odd to me. Again it may be SOP for aircraft sureties and I am just ignorant.
OnlyForNow
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Your first paragraph is where I'm having my "aha moment" strangeness aside from the lease, leasee, longhorns, etc etc etc. If he owns the plane and caused damage to the pasture, it's normal that the pilot/his insurance would be gone after to try and make the other party whole again.
Bunk Moreland
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OnlyForNow said:

Your first paragraph is where I'm having my "aha moment" strangeness aside from the lease, leasee, longhorns, etc etc etc. If he owns the plane and caused damage to the pasture, it's normal that the pilot/his insurance would be gone after to try and make the other party whole again.

I don't think anyone was worried about damage to the pasture. That would be the BBC's concern anyway.

The mayor and the genetics guy were mad it disrupted their process, and according to the Eagle article I'm still not very convinced the plane crashing actually did. The 'rogue' bull getting in still doesn't give me enough context to understand how that messed up an operation that led to a contract being canceled.

Maybe there's a very easy to understand reason it all led to that. But if I were a betting man I'd be more inclined to think this was a situation where some people recognized an opportunity to try and receive a payout from someone.
EliteElectric
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OnlyForNow said:

Your first paragraph is where I'm having my "aha moment" strangeness aside from the lease, leasee, longhorns, etc etc etc. If he owns the plane and caused damage to the pasture, it's normal that the pilot/his insurance would be gone after to try and make the other party whole again.
I'm not a lawyer, but I would guess that "wholeness" would also extend to lease holder and their designees, as well as disruptions, business costs, and any punitive and emotional harm. Also very much in play I would think could be any tortious interference that this caused.
trouble
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TI isn't that easy. You'd have to prove the pilot knew of the contract between Rafter D and La Pistola and that he acted intentionally and improperly to interfere with their business relationship.
cslifer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nobody is concealing the carrier. The letter attached to the lawsuit from the pilot very clearly states that the attorney was retained by Starr insurance.
DannyDuberstein
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
They need to sort out whether this rogue bull was the young type that would have run down there to F one of these cows. Or the old, wise type that would have walked down there and F'd them all.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.