Page 6 of 7

Re: Los Angeles, California

PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:16 pm
by dhmartens
Another interesting tidbit:
Bruce Leitner ran for San Diego city council but only got 10% of the vote. I also read he received no donations through fund raising.
I guess they didn't want to leave a money trail to aid in prosecution of those "Crooks".

Re: Los Angeles, California

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:33 am
by JoeF
Vibrations have resulted in a coming offer of some yet unknown "option" from the "department" [Department of Beaches and Harbor]. The option will be presented for discussion.

Re: Los Angeles, California

PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 11:13 pm
by dhmartens
Just another tidbit that Windsports has to contend with at Dockweiler that Torrey Pines might also have written into there lease is all employees must be paid a livable wage, $100 a day minimum (or so) and a full days pay no short days. Maybe Jebbs kid won't be cussing you out if he is paid a decent wage, that is if San diego adopts Los Angeles "Standards(operating Procedures)" for flight parks. Paraglider instructors that can afford to eat and have a good nights sleep may be safer instructors.

Re: Los Angeles, California

PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 7:15 pm
by JoeF
Is there anything untrue in April 24, 2017, viewed version of Wikipedia article section on Dockweiler:

Hang gliding
The park boasts the Dockweiler Hang Gliding Center and the Hang Gliding Flight Training Concession; where beginners can learn the sport of hang gliding; experienced hang glider enthusiasts may practice the art and sport as the plaque set in 2000 at the site indicates. Enthusiasts and students of the concession launch off 25-foot-high (7.6 m) dunes. The facility was built by the city, county, and state; to serve lesson-and-renting needs a concession is operated by a concession named WindSports International, Inc. under a limited contract. [5] With gentle breezes and a broad, sandy landing zone, Dockweiler was a major testing ground for hang gliding pioneers in the 1960s. Concerned about safety and liability, however, city officials banned the sport at the beach in 1986. Practitioners lobbied for 13 years to reopen Dockweiler to hang gliding, ultimately winning a $6 million renovation in 2000 that included the Dockweiler Hang Gliding Center. It was the first hang gliding park established in conjunction with a city government.[6] Friends of Dockweiler Gliding Society (FDGS) was founded at the 2015 Otto Lilienthal Birthday Party sponsored by the US Hawks Hang Gliding Association; the FDGS is a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving the park's gliding activity for the public.

Re: Los Angeles, California

PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 7:48 pm
by JoeF
On site:
Code: Select all
My notes: "Visit" Activities: hang gliding is included matter-of-factly. Note: The facility list does not mention the lesson-and-renting option for hang gliding.

The County of Los Angeles has been informing the world:


Dockweiler State Beach has 3.7 miles of ocean frontage and 288 acres of beach. Amenities include restrooms, showers, picnic facilities, fire rings, and volleyball nets.

The bicycle path is readily accessible, which many visitors use for roller-blading, jogging, and of course bicycling.


Beach Lifeguards – Daylight Hours
Hang Gliding


Beach Wheelchair (@ Youth Center)
Bike Path Access
Fire Pits
Food Concession Stand
Picnic Tables
RV Park
Volleyball Nets
Youth Center

Re: Los Angeles, California

PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:19 pm
by Rick Masters
County of Los Angeles
Department of Beaches and Harbors
13837 Fiji Way
Marina Del Ray
CA 90292

Dear County of Los Angeles,

It has come to our attention that, while hang glider pilots are charged to use Dockweiler Beach, enthusiasts of other sports are not. We are therefore submitting a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) for concessionaire for the following activities which are presently not covered under the current regulations:


All these activities have produced greater accident numbers than hang gliding at Dockweiler Beach. Therefore, to be equitable and fair, we propose requiring each participant to buy insurance from us to use Dockweiler Beach facilities, using the same model required for hang gliding. Because we are self-insured, it will be necessary for each participant to buy a term of membership in our corporation. We will, of course, ignore California Recreation Law, which holds your County harmless, and maintain the pretext that insurance is necessary for all activities taking place on Los Angeles County premises. The extra money will help us to provide a living wage for the people we hire to regulate these activities. Any who refuse to buy insurance will be turned away or arrested by Los Angeles County police on our complaint. We will, of course, be free to establish our own rates.

Predatory A. Hole

cc: ACLU

Re: Los Angeles, California

PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2017 9:09 am
by Frank Colver
Dear Predatory A Hole:

When will you be making an IPO for your fantastic, soon to be raking in the dough, corporation?

If you are not doing an IPO anytime soon then I'll take a cold IPA instead.

Mr. Pay U Suckers esq. :crazy:

Re: Los Angeles, California

PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 2:14 am
by JoeF
Surfing: no added insurance burden

Re: Los Angeles, California

PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 12:41 pm
by JoeF
Screen Shot 2017-05-13 at 12.38.09 PM.png
Screen Shot 2017-05-13 at 12.38.09 PM.png (290.79 KiB) Viewed 1543 times

Sign suggestion with slight changes of location name from King Mountain to Dockweiler Hang Gliding Area,
and drop "paragliding".

Re: Los Angeles, California

PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 1:55 pm
by eagle
Torrey Pines Gliderport ~ ABOVE THE LAW

Definition (idiomatic) ~ Exempt from the laws that apply to everyone else.

The Flight director and staff are above the law. Acting as a Company or Association they think they're above the law, but they're not.
A City Leaseholder, a Concessionaire, is in a position where one can avoid being bound by the laws that govern ordinary people. ...
A racketeering operation, extorting public money into private account under the "Color of Office"

"'The problem is a small hardcore group of employees who believe they are above the law."
All seemingly controlled by an executive leaseholder (thug) and staff which think they are above the law.
All approved by our Mayor and city council, WITH no public vote or say as to how our parks are run

Simply Claiming they didn't know and or ... & it's perfectly legal according to his city contract.
Openly Claiming that They represents the City park decisions without question and impunity to common Law

"The Gliderport leaseholder has declared himself above the law, acting with impunity."
"The leaseholder thinks he he has entitlement to funds received by a Corrupted City Lease Agreement"
"The Leaseholder is now commanding the Mayor's office and the city park real estate assets lease agreements"

"The Mayor and the city council is allowing this to happen"

A racketeering operation, Cornering the market for all Sales & Instruction
Making up site rules they don't keep themselves or are not lawful .
Collecting money for what is normally free by there own faculty.
Collecting insurance flight moneys, not needed by normal Law
A Diversion of Public funds into private accounts
The threat of violence towards those who speak out.
Threat of false reports and arrest
Threat of Lic & Rating suspension
Threat of negligent under the influence operation

POSING A THREAT Interfering with a Public witness’s testimony or cooperation in a criminal case is a criminal act that can be misdemeanor or a felony. Intimidating or tampering with a witness involves trying to get a witness to lie, say certain things under oath, alter or destroy evidence, or not testify or cooperate with authorities at all. Examples include:

- asking a witness to testify in a certain way, to lie, to not testify, to not report a crime or to not cooperate with police
- offering a witness a bribe (money, material goods, or some other benefit)
- threatening a witness with physical violence or property damage
- threatening the witness’s family members or loved ones, and
- preventing a witness from attending a legal proceeding, such as a court hearing or deposition.

Some states’ statutes criminalize intentionally influencing a witness by any means. Others require a use of force, threat of force, or use of intimidation or coercion. Under the first type of statute, simply asking a witness to testify or not to testify in your favor constitutes witness tampering. The other statutes require that the person accused actually threatened or intimidated the witness.

Coercion and intimidation can involve threats other than physical violence or property damage. An employer could threaten an employee’s job or promise a promotion if the employee will testify in a certain way or refuse to testify. A witness also could be threatened with harm to his business or reputation.

Who Can Be Accused of Witness Tampering or Intimidation
The idea that any person that threatens or tries to influence Public witness’s testimony on behalf of the leaseholder, concessionaire or the prosecution, he has committed a crime. If a Employee, relative or friend of the defendant threatens a witness or someone involved in or supporting the prosecution tries to bribe a witness, for example, both have committed witness tampering.

If the Leaseholder, Concessionaire is involved in witness tampering committed by another person, he also can be charged with a crime. For instance, if the parties involved uses an employee or pays someone to contact a witness or is involved in planning a threat or attack on a witness, he could be charged with witness intimidation or conspiracy to commit the crime.
The Leaseholder, Concessionaire has tried to influence or interfere with the witness's A prosecutor can file charges based on the witness’s statements alone, but some kind of corroborating evidence is necessary to get a conviction.

RCW 9 (1) A person is guilty of intimidating a witness if a person, by use of a threat against a current or prospective witness, attempts to:

(a) Influence the testimony of that person;
(b) Induce that person to elude legal process summoning him or her to testify;
(c) Induce that person to absent himself or herself from such proceedings; or
(d) Induce that person not to report the information relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child, not to have the crime or the abuse or neglect of a minor child prosecuted, or not to give truthful or complete information relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child.
(2) A person also is guilty of intimidating a witness if the person directs a threat to a former witness because of the witness's role in an official proceeding.
(3) As used in this section:
(a) "Threat" means:
(i) To communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time; or
(ii) Threat as defined in *RCW 9A.04.110(27).
(b) "Current or prospective witness" means:
(i) A person endorsed as a witness in an official proceeding;
(ii) A person whom the actor believes may be called as a witness in any official proceeding; or
(iii) A person whom the actor has reason to believe may have information relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child.
(c) "Former witness" means:
(i) A person who testified in an official proceeding;
(ii) A person who was endorsed as a witness in an official proceeding;
(iii) A person whom the actor knew or believed may have been called as a witness if a hearing or trial had been held; or
(iv) A person whom the actor knew or believed may have provided information related to a criminal investigation or an investigation into the abuse or neglect of a minor child.
(4) Intimidating a witness is a class B felony.
(5) For purposes of this section, each instance of an attempt to intimidate a witness constitutes a separate offense.

Truth Arrows.jpg
Truth Arrows.jpg (12.8 KiB) Viewed 1542 times