techno-ag said:

---

doubledog said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

doubledog said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

doubledog said:

---

EliteElectric said:

---

TAMU, COCS, COB, both ISD's and Brazos county all have dollar amount thresholds that they are allowed to use taxpayer dollars to pay for goods and services. without any bid process or council approvals or quorums. FE they may have a 20k threshold for electrical services/work that they can just get done without need for any due diligence or obligation to find best value, a lot of that work goes directly to my competitors because they are used to using them for that work even though we have never been given opportunity to do it. That's just how it is and I am OK with it.

---

So if your competitor was given an electrical contract from say the BBC without even asking you, then that would be ok, as long as the value of the job (in this case at least $2000/year) does not exceed a certain limit?
Because that is what you are saying..

---

That's not an apples to apples comparison. First, it's a grazing lease that benefits BBC more than the leasee. Second, it can be revoked at any time with one month's notice to vacate. Third, yes the BBC board can ethically assign such a lease to whoever they think would serve them best. Not every bid for construction goes to the lowest bidder, either. And when that happens it's legal and ethical too. The board votes on these things and decides what's best for the organization.

---

Wow, wrong on all counts.
1. The lessee benefits from an essentially free lease, saving him at the least $1999/year (average cost)
2. Any contract can have a month to month clause.
3. The BBC is ethically responsible to provide open and honest dealings with public property.
4. From what has been reported it appears, that the BBC did not vet anyone else.. So your lowest bidder analogy is wrong too.

Before the Mayor opened this can of worms, did anyone (beside those connected to the BBC) know about the $1/year grazing lease? I have talked to a lot of local ranchers in the last two weeks. They told me that they would have loved to have the $1/year lease, if only someone would have informed them.

---

Sure they would have, but the board did not know them. Why go with an unknown person?

And again it was not advertised because it did not go out for bids, and that's ok.

---

Thank you, you just confirmed that the lease went to a "known and trusted" individual, i.e. a member of the good old boys club. The trouble with that scenario is that this is a closed loop and as an outsider it is difficult to break into and is thus at its root unfair to all others. Not a good look for a central Texas city.

---

I disagree it's unfair. If a cattleman wanted to be more involved in city affairs, he could show up at these meetings, maybe volunteer for some committees, get involved and get to know the BBC board members. Then, when that once in a lifetime temporary grazing lease for a nominal amount opens, maybe he too would be considered by the BBC board.

I disagree with the premise that not making this a bidding process is somehow illegal or unethical.

---

Thanks again for proving my (our) point "It is not what you know but who you know"

Social interactions do count... That is why you see so many business men/women at them.
I am just saying that it is a system that is still in place in Bryan. It was in full force when I moved here 30+years ago and it is still here (this thread proves it). 30+ years ago, it was the good old boys... Now it is the sons of the good old boys.

Pilot dismisses lawsuit against Bryan mayor

Quote:

---

If a cattleman wanted to be more involved in city affairs, he could show up at these meetings, maybe volunteer for some committees, get involved and get to know the BBC board members. Then, when that once in a lifetime temporary grazing lease for a nominal amount opens, maybe he too would be considered by the BBC board.

---

Quid pro Quo anyone??

Quote:

---

Without exception the auditors send board members a form to fill out requiring disclosure of any interest in businesses or relationships with people that do business with the entity.

---

Now FishrCoAg makes point about how his town does business. But in Fisher Co every one knowns everyone else's business anyway. But taking the extra step says something about transparency.

Not sure it would behoove the mayor to pursue that lawsuit. More things come out in discovery.

I'm hoping it happens so we have chance that the bull from the wrong side of the fence gets his own spin-off thread.

If this happens, and I do mean, *if*, I certainly hope we see it on an episode of Judge Judy

techno-ag said:

---

Another Doug said:

---

It's a direct quote from the attorney.

---

Still seems like an insurance thing. Maybe the individual is sued but the insurance company pays out. Not sure how much airplane insurance differs from car insurance.

---

Much more money involved in a airplane claim.

FYI... Thank you confirming. An insurance claim is the way the Mayor should have handled this in the first place.

doubledog said:

---

An insurance claim is the way the Mayor should have handled this in the first place.

---

You say that like you know he didn't.

Was Gryder not there for the pickup? All that talk about showing up and straightening it all out. Where's the follow up video?

Maybe once more of it came out he realized that he was the one who was wrong. The plane was never held and it wasn't emotional distress. I guess he's too busy making the retraction video to make the trip. I'm sure it'll be put out any day now. Maybe Borell's attorney finally put one and one together also.

davido said:

---

Maybe Borell's attorney finally put one and one together also.

---

It's ALMOST like a pilot who admitted errors caused damages and the cattleman had let him know very early on he'd done so. Weird.

Or, they filed the lawsuit in order to get the plane back and that was accomplished.

davido said:

---

doubledog said:

---

An insurance claim is the way the Mayor should have handled this in the first place.

---

You say that like you know he didn't.

Was Gryder not there for the pickup? All that talk about showing up and straightening it all out. Where's the follow up video?

Maybe once more of it came out he realized that he was the one who was wrong. The plane was never held and it wasn't emotional distress. I guess he's too busy making the retraction video to make the trip. I'm sure it'll be put out any day now. Maybe Borell's attorney finally put one and one together also.

---

Yes just an assumption on my part. Most people do not call the other party and tell them about their damages, they just file a claim.

trouble said:

---

Or, they filed the lawsuit in order to get the plane back and that was accomplished.

---

doubledog said:

---

davido said:

---

doubledog said:

---

An insurance claim is the way the Mayor should have handled this in the first place.

---

You say that like you know he didn't.

Was Gryder not there for the pickup? All that talk about showing up and straightening it all out. Where's the follow up video?

Maybe once more of it came out he realized that he was the one who was wrong. The plane was never held and it wasn't emotional distress. I guess he's too busy making the retraction video to make the trip. I'm sure it'll be put out any day now. Maybe Borell's attorney finally put one and one together also.

---

Most people do not call the other party and tell them about their damages, they just file a claim.

---

Unless you're the newly elected hotshot mayor of Bryan, Texas and you think you're dealing with a hayseed from Louisiana.

doubledog said:

---

davido said:

---

doubledog said:

---

An insurance claim is the way the Mayor should have handled this in the first place.

---

You say that like you know he didn't.

Was Gryder not there for the pickup? All that talk about showing up and straightening it all out. Where's the follow up video?

Maybe once more of it came out he realized that he was the one who was wrong. The plane was never held and it wasn't emotional distress. I guess he's too busy making the retraction video to make the trip. I'm sure it'll be put out any day now. Maybe Borell's attorney finally put one and one together also.

---

Yes just an assumption on my part. Most people do not call the other party and tell them about their damages, they just file a claim.

---

Usually you have to talk to the other party to get the insurance information so you can file a claim. So perfectly reasonable to contact the pilot to get the insurance info.

I have also dealt with small car insurance claims where one party just pays the other and they don't get insurance involved. Possible the pilot figured the damages would have been small because he didn't hit a cow or a fence. Easier to pay a rancher a few hundred bucks than to have that claim on insurance, but then the mayor through a out the 250k.


But yeah, that would be entirely reasonable, so let's just ignore that possibility.

And the BBC learned about the plane, how?

techno-ag said:

---

trouble said:

---

Or, they filed the lawsuit in order to get the plane back and that was accomplished.

---

Except, the BBC told him to remove the plane. More likely, I think the pilot realized what a bad idea the lawsuit was.

---

That is some outstanding unintentional humor

The plane owner was finally dealing with someone who actually had the legal basis, for allowing removal of the plane. The BBC also moved their "deadlines" for removal, to accommodate the owner.

Edited to add, from the BBC news release:

"Neither the pilot nor the pilot's insurance company contacted the BBC or Rafter D following the emergency landing. Once the BBC was made aware of a social media debate concerning the removal of the airplane, the BBC contacted the insurance company and requested that the airplane be removed from the property no later than March 16, 2023.
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023, the BBC received information from an attorney representing the owner of the airplane. The attorney advised the BBC that the owner of the airplane has engaged Lone Star Retrieval to remove the airplane from the BBC's property. The BBC expects that the airplane will be removed sometime the week of 20-25 March 2023. The BBC will cooperate as needed with the owner of the airplane and Lone Star Retrieval in order for the airplane to be removed from the BBC's property."

BiochemAg97 said:

---

doubledog said:

---

davido said:

---

doubledog said:

---

An insurance claim is the way the Mayor should have handled this in the first place.

---

You say that like you know he didn't.

Was Gryder not there for the pickup? All that talk about showing up and straightening it all out. Where's the follow up video?

Maybe once more of it came out he realized that he was the one who was wrong. The plane was never held and it wasn't emotional distress. I guess he's too busy making the retraction video to make the trip. I'm sure it'll be put out any day now. Maybe Borell's attorney finally put one and one together also.

---

Yes just an assumption on my part. Most people do not call the other party and tell them about their damages, they just file a claim.

---

Usually you have to talk to the other party to get the insurance information so you can file a claim. So perfectly reasonable to contact the pilot to get the insurance info.

I have also dealt with small car insurance claims where one party just pays the other and they don't get insurance involved. Possible the pilot figured the damages would have been small because he didn't hit a cow or a fence. Easier to pay a rancher a few hundred bucks than to have that claim on insurance, but then the mayor through a out the 250k.


But yeah, that would be entirely reasonable, so let's just ignore that possibility.

---

This is true, but shouldn't Dorn (the lessee) or the BBC (owner) contacted the pilot first to obtain the insurance information? And why didn't the Mayor tell Dorn that he had contacted the pilot... That would have been resonable.

Another Doug said:

---

It's a direct quote from the attorney.

---

Which pretty much means zero considering all the cease and desist letters and whatnot. I know if I have legal trouble, who I'm *not* calling…

TequilaMockingbird said:

---

think you're dealing with a hayseed from Louisiana.

---

Yeah, a lot of hayseeds in the pilot community.

davido said:

---

GSS said:

---

The plane owner was finally dealing with someone who actually had the legal basis, for allowing removal of the plane.

---

Where did the pilot ever say that anyone (Dorn, Gutierrez, BBC, COB, Jesus, etc) was withholding access for recovery? He doesn't say it in the video, only Gryder does. Both Dorn and Gutierrez directly refute that claim. Also, why would the pilot need to file a suit for recovery? Wouldn't the insurance be handling that?

---

Did you sleep through, or simply skip, the multiple times that Gutierrez was referenced as the "responding party", "represented as owner, or in control, of the land", etc...
And then there is the lawsuit (now dropped) text:

11. Since December 27, 2022 Defendant Robert Gutierrez has repeatedly represented that he is the owner or otherwise controls the subject property.

12. Plaintiff has made repeated attempts to arrange for access to the subject property to retrieve the subject aircraft. These attempts include a February 8, 2023 letter from Plaintiff's counsel to Colin Sergio Cardenas, and Robert Gutierrez. A copy of this letter is attached to the Affidavit of Rene Borrel as Exhibit "A." Defendants have refused and continue to refuse to grant access to the subject property to permit retrieval of the subject aircraft.

13. Plaintiff brings this litigation and seeks non-monetary relief, i.e., immediate return of the subject aircraft and monetary relief of $250,000 or less, excluding interest, statutory or punitive damages and penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs and for any and all other relief that Plaintiff may show himself justly entitled.

And the referenced letter:
February 8, 2023
Colin Sergio Cardenas c/o Martha Ann Williams PO Box 620 Snook, TX 77878-0620 Robert Gutierrez Via Certified Mail No.: 9402711899562110095997, La Pistola Cattle, LLC FedEx No. 771261007346, 404 N Haswell Drive and e-mail: gtrg40@hotmail.com and Bcramer02@hotmail.com Bryan, TX 77803-4853 Robert Gutierrez Via Certified Mail No.: 9402811899562110029722, La Pistola Cattle, LLC FedEx No. 771261043388, 1401 S. Texas Avenue and e-mail: gtrg40@hotmail.com and Bcramer02@hotmail.com Bryan, TX 77802

Re: Insured: Rene Borrel Policy Number: 1000282185-03 Date Of Loss: December 27, 2022 Aircraft: 1977 Piper Pa-32RT-300 Lance II, N528CW Dear Messrs. Cardenas and Gutierrez: My law firm has been retained by Starr Insurance Companies' ("Starr") to obtain return of a 1977 Piper Pa-32RT-300 Lance II, N528CW ("subject aircraft") which has been unlawfully withheld since December 27, 2022. On December 27, 2022, the subject aircraft was being piloted by Starr insured Rene Borrel when he made an emergency landing in a field located at 8679 Jones Road, College Station, Texas 77845. Pursuant to the Brazos County Appraisal District, this property is owned by Colin Sergio Cardenas. However, since the date of the incident, Robert Gutierrez has repeatedly represented that he is the owner of the property. Thus, this letter is addressed to both Messrs. Cardenas and Gutierrez.

Colin Sergio Cardenas Robert Gutierrez February 8, 2023
Page 2
www.cunninghamswaim.com Texas California Colorado New York
Despite several attempts by Starr, Mr. Gutierrez has refused and continues to refuse to grant access to the property to retrieve the subject aircraft. Mr. Gutierrez has indicated that he will not permit the subject aircraft to be removed from the property until his claim for lost profits is resolved. While he may or may not have a viable claim for lost profits, this does not provide a basis for the subject aircraft to be unlawfully retained. To date, the claim for lost profits has not been formally made or substantiated. To the extent that a claim for damages resulting from the emergency landing is being made, please provide documentation supporting the claim. With respect to the subject aircraft, I respectfully request that you contact me on or before February 17, 2023 so that we can arrange for its retrieval. If you do not contact me, we will have no choice but to institute legal proceedings against each of you to obtain a judicial order to permit access to the property so that Starr can retrieve the subject aircraft. Thank you for your attention to the foregoing. I look forward to hearing from you shortly. Sincerely, Don Swaim

GSS said:

---

davido said:

---

Where did the pilot ever say that anyone (Dorn, Gutierrez, BBC, COB, Jesus, etc) was withholding access for recovery? He doesn't say it in the video, only Gryder does. Both Dorn and Gutierrez directly refute that claim. Also, why would the pilot need to file a suit for recovery? Wouldn't the insurance be handling that?

---

Did you sleep through, or simply skip, the multiple times that Gutierrez was referenced as the "responding party", "represented as owner, or in control, of the land", etc...

---

He's either gaslighting, or it's willful ignorance.

[We have made it clear that we are not going to allow disrespectful posts or name calling on this forum. -Staff]