Sonny Tufts
Member

How did they manipulate it? There was no "case" until a plaintiff filed a petition. What did the FBI and CIA do after it was filed? Did they somehow cause Jones to behave like a pigheaded ass and invite court sanctions by disobeying orders? You seem to be assuming that none of the plaintiffs would have sued Jones but for "suggestions" from the FBI and CIA. I disagree. Even before Sandy Hook occurred, Jones had already been sued by a person whom Jones had falsely accused of being the gunman in a different school shooting, and the law firm representing the plaintiff in that case was contacted by the parents of two Sandy Hook victims about suing Jones. This firm filed the first two suits against Jones in connection with Sandy Hook.

Which was because he disobeyed court orders in connection with discovery. He has only himself to blame.

I agree. But Alex Jones is a poor poster boy to be held up as having been harmed by the CIA. Any harm he suffered was due to his own disobedience of court orders and his lies about Sandy Hook. That's one reason why his case against the FBI and CIA will go nowhere.

Danno: "I believe Alex Jones." Conclusion: Danno is very gullible. Jones has zero credibility. Don't forget, default judgments were rendered by two different judges in two different states, both owing to Jones' disobeying court orders in connection with discovery.

The point is that the families who sued Jones would have done so with or without any federal nudging. Plaintiffs' lawyers are an aggressive bunch.

They had no need to nudge. There were plenty of plaintiffs' lawyers to do more than nudge.

I's like to know exactly what the CIA and/or FBI did to cause Jones to lie about Sandy Hook and to disobey court orders resulting in default judgments being rendered against him.

No one in his right mind will buy a property subject to a conservation easement without first making a deal with the easement's owner to get the easement released. Or are you suggesting that someone would pay $200+ million for Mar-a-Lago in the hopes that he could bribe the Trustees of the National Trust for Historic Preservation to release the easement for a nominal amount (which would result in the revocation of the Trust's tax-exempt status and big trouble for the Trustees)? It's interesting that two of the ex-officio Trustees are the Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney General. Good luck getting them to cave.

That might be true if the county owned the easement, but not even in Florida (where by statute conservation easements are perpetual) can government deprive a private party of its easement (which by law is an interest in land) just by going poof. You don't seem to understand that the county doesn't own the easement, and it can no more deprive the Trust of its easement than it could take your house and give it to your neighbor.

The county can't terminate the easement because it doesn't own it. The easement was granted to the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Even assuming that the Trust could release the easement without a court order and without jeopardizing its tax-exempt status, it could demand such an exorbitant amount for the release such that no buyer would be willing to pay.

You seem to think that the buyer can buy the property from the owner and extinguish the easement. He can't. He will have to take the property subject to the easement and all of its restrictions.

There is no "going rate". The owner of the easement, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, could charge whatever it wanted to terminate the easement, even assuming it could legally terminate the easement without a court order and without jeopardizing its tax-exempt status, both of which are extremely doubtful.

What makes you think the buyer could eliminate the easement?

Before believing some buyer would be willing to pay $200 million + for the property I'd want to see a current appraisal of Mar-a-Lago (done by an expert not hired by either Trump or the NY AG) that values the property taking into account the existing conservation easement on it. It's doubtful the comparables the lady in the video referred to are similarly restricted.