[wingspan33]

Bob,

It will be interesting to see how or IF the u$hPa replies to your above sent message.

Have you talked with anyone (like the CA Bar) about Herr's obvious retaliation against you - by way of the u$hPa Board of Directors - for acting as a witness against a client of his in that (negligence?) law suit?

As best that I can view this from an objective perspective, this time the u$hPa seems to have really stepped in WAY over their heads. Of course their "lawyer" convinced them to move in this direction, didn't he. There's probably another ethical violation in there for giving your client(s) [the u$hPa BODs] knowingly bad "legal" advice. Heck, maybe the u$hPa can turn around and sue Herr so as to get back a bit of the judgement you're awarded.

Hmmmmm, . . . . but then, the future is still to come. . . . .

[dhmartens]

I will post part 1 of the messages if you agree to debate MForbs on just the specific issue of the tie downs and Barton.
You would be doing Sylmar/Yosemite and Hang gliding if you both did. I shaved off completely my long hair when Barton's sister was sick to help.
Bud Rob and OP pledged money to a "mental health" fund after I mentioned a crazy theory of "Quetzalcoatl Aztec Mormon Christ whale God possession(entity attachment)of San Diego"
This fund could pay the additional $300/year needed to eliminate "Ushpa" from their life if that's what they need to get better and return to the sport.
MForbes offers his opinion that you are Crazy, thus eligible for the subsidy.
Here is part 1 of his message.


From: Mgforbes Quote message
To: Dhmartens
Posted: Thu, Mar 26 2015, 5:27 am
Subject: USUA insurance
Hi Doug,

I don't think that'll work. As I recall, you can't add landowner coverage to that policy. USHPA insured sites,
strictly speaking, are sites at which *landowners* are named as additional insureds on the policy. You may
be protected for your personal liability, but that doesn't extend to landowners whose property you use. If
they're sued (for example, you hit somebody in the LZ, and they sue both you and the LZ owner) then your
insurance will cover you but not them. That's why we insist that all pilots at insured sites are USHPA members;
if they're not, then there's no coverage for the landowner. The condition of getting the site open is that we
will protect the landowner with insurance coverage, and we can't keep that promise if non-USHPA-members
are flying there. They're not insured, and they're not covered by the waiver.

Coverage limits also vary; at Crestline and Sylmar it's the standard $1 million/incident, $2 million annual
aggregate, but some other sites require higher amounts.

Thinking a bit more, it may be that you can add *one* landowner to the USUA policy…I looked into this
some years ago for Rick Cavallaro up in San Francisco…but not landowners generally. And if you aren't
flying USHPA insured sites, then you don't need a USHPA membership at all to legally fly.

BobK spins a tale, but his actions have the potential to cause some huge increases in OUR insurance
rates if his testimony results in our waiver being overturned in a California court. That's really what
has pushed the board to act; we evaluated his testimony as an "expert" witness, and the conclusion of
the board was that he has misrepresented the facts and testified to falsehoods before the court. He
said things under oath which are not true, in order to aid a lawsuit against a USHPA member. He did
this (I think) because of his long-standing grudge against the flight park management, going back
ten years or more. His actions have threatened the flight park, disrupted lessons for students and
have the potential to threaten our insurability in the future. Bob styles himself as an "expert" on
all things instruction-related, but his testimony is in conflict with the consensus of many instructors
on the board and elsewhere. The plaintiff's lawyers had to fish around quite a while before they
found someone to sign the statement that they're using, because the real instructors that they asked
wouldn't agree that what they said was true. But then there's BobK…not an instructor, but happy
to sign anything that would dish some dirt at his "enemy". According to his own testimony,
the whole feud started when he wanted to have video taken of his first PG flight and the flight
park people told him "no". They didn't want him distracted on his first PG solo by a camera. He
refused to fly unless he was filmed, and they said no, and the whole feud has snowballed from there.
Crazy, huh?

Anyhow, believe whomever you want to. After ten years of dealing with the guy, trying to reason
with him and getting nowhere, I don't think there's any way to persuade him to change his
behavior and it's only getting worse. I wish he'd get some help, because he badly needs it. Not
according to him of course, and that's the root of the problem.

Cheers!
MGF

[Bob Kuczewski]

I will post part 1 of the messages if you agree to debate MForbs on just the specific issue of the tie downs and Barton.

Hi Doug,

I'll debate Mark Forbes any time, any where, and on any topic - including "Barton and the Tie Downs" (sounds like a rock band from the late 60's doesn't it?).

Thanks for posting!!!

Bob

You would be doing Sylmar/Yosemite and Hang gliding if you both did. I shaved off completely my long hair when Barton's sister was sick to help.
Bud Rob and OP pledged money to a "mental health" fund after I mentioned a crazy theory of "Quetzalcoatl Aztec Mormon Christ whale God possession(entity attachment)of San Diego"
This fund could pay the additional $300/year needed to eliminate "Ushpa" from their life if that's what they need to get better and return to the sport.
MForbes offers his opinion that you are Crazy, thus eligible for the subsidy.
Here is part 1 of his message.


From: Mgforbes Quote message
To: Dhmartens
Posted: Thu, Mar 26 2015, 5:27 am
Subject: USUA insurance
Hi Doug,

I don't think that'll work. As I recall, you can't add landowner coverage to that policy. USHPA insured sites,
strictly speaking, are sites at which *landowners* are named as additional insureds on the policy. You may
be protected for your personal liability, but that doesn't extend to landowners whose property you use. If
they're sued (for example, you hit somebody in the LZ, and they sue both you and the LZ owner) then your
insurance will cover you but not them. That's why we insist that all pilots at insured sites are USHPA members;
if they're not, then there's no coverage for the landowner. The condition of getting the site open is that we
will protect the landowner with insurance coverage, and we can't keep that promise if non-USHPA-members
are flying there. They're not insured, and they're not covered by the waiver.

Coverage limits also vary; at Crestline and Sylmar it's the standard $1 million/incident, $2 million annual
aggregate, but some other sites require higher amounts.

Thinking a bit more, it may be that you can add *one* landowner to the USUA policy…I looked into this
some years ago for Rick Cavallaro up in San Francisco…but not landowners generally. And if you aren't
flying USHPA insured sites, then you don't need a USHPA membership at all to legally fly.

BobK spins a tale, but his actions have the potential to cause some huge increases in OUR insurance
rates if his testimony results in our waiver being overturned in a California court. That's really what
has pushed the board to act; we evaluated his testimony as an "expert" witness, and the conclusion of
the board was that he has misrepresented the facts and testified to falsehoods before the court. He
said things under oath which are not true, in order to aid a lawsuit against a USHPA member. He did
this (I think) because of his long-standing grudge against the flight park management, going back
ten years or more. His actions have threatened the flight park, disrupted lessons for students and
have the potential to threaten our insurability in the future. Bob styles himself as an "expert" on
all things instruction-related, but his testimony is in conflict with the consensus of many instructors
on the board and elsewhere. The plaintiff's lawyers had to fish around quite a while before they
found someone to sign the statement that they're using, because the real instructors that they asked
wouldn't agree that what they said was true. But then there's BobK…not an instructor, but happy
to sign anything that would dish some dirt at his "enemy". According to his own testimony,
the whole feud started when he wanted to have video taken of his first PG flight and the flight
park people told him "no". They didn't want him distracted on his first PG solo by a camera. He
refused to fly unless he was filmed, and they said no, and the whole feud has snowballed from there.
Crazy, huh?

Anyhow, believe whomever you want to. After ten years of dealing with the guy, trying to reason
with him and getting nowhere, I don't think there's any way to persuade him to change his
behavior and it's only getting worse. I wish he'd get some help, because he badly needs it. Not
according to him of course, and that's the root of the problem.

Cheers!
MGF

[Rick Masters]

I can only compare MarkF's perception of BobK with his perception of me after I had announced my concerns over the ongoing global slaughter of paraglider pilots.

If we're going to persuade our bag-wing brethren to embrace the true faith of aluminum and Dacron, we need to lay off the pointless trolling and stop acting like a bunch of a-holes. Over and over, I've heard comments from PG pilots who are interested in HG as a crossover possibility, but put off by the attitude and posturing of some in the HG community. Such as Rick Masters and Rodger Hoyt.
Sneering and derision doesn't win friends. It just alienates and divides, at a time when we all need to work together. Hang gliding participation is down, though starting to recover a bit. Paragliding is about flat. We *all* need to be pulling in the same direction, and this sort of divisive crap is the LAST thing we need. If ever there was an example of how to contribute to the decline of hang gliding, this would be it. Knock it off!
Mark G. Forbes, Regional Director, U$HPA

That's the extent of the safety consciousness of U$hPa, as far as I can tell. Bob's the problem. I'm the problem. U$hPa is the victim. It would be funny if it were not for the one thousand three hundred dead people killed globally by paragliders. His time would have been better spent discussing the problem with David Norwood, the U$hPa Paragliding Safety Committee co-chair.

Mark seems fond of twisting the truth to rationalize his argument, whatever it is. By the way, the U$hPa seems to be the problem.

[Merlin]

We *all* need to be pulling in the same direction, and this sort of divisive crap is the LAST thing we need.

Sounds like the USHPA needs something like a "pledge of allegiance" to keep everyone on the right track. And perhaps a "minister of information" to keep the message consistent and wholesome.

[Rick Masters]

Whatever. Once you leave the U$hPa, it becomes irrelevant.

[Bill Cummings]

Whatever. Once you leave the U$hPa, it becomes irrelevant.

True power.JPG (23.82 KiB) Viewed 6157 times

[wingspan33]

I've wondered what MGF meant by this -

"BobK spins a tale, but his actions have the potential to cause some huge increases in OUR insurance
rates if his testimony results in our waiver being overturned in a California court. . . "

I miss interpreted that at first, but by "our waiver" I think he means the one members sign when they fill out their membership paperwork.

But how can Air California Adventure's negligence lead to that outcome? As I understand things (from a reliable source) the plaintiff is only suing ACA Inc. How does that link up with the validity or invalidity of the u$hPa's waiver? Could be that ACA Inc. is trying to deflect some of its liability onto the u$hPa? There are details here that haven't been put out in the open.

Final thought, . . . If u$hPa's legal rep (Tim Herr) has worded the waiver poorly then the u$hPa could actually be screwed - because there's some detail it fails to cover. But since Bob K didn't write the uShPa's waiver how does Forbes come off placing blame on him?

What a mess the uShPa has gotten itself into! Yikes!

[wingspan33]

Just found this (not a new issue by any means) -

Court Rules Liability Waiver Invalid When There is Gross Negligence
July 19, 2007

The California Supreme Court has ruled that a signed liability waiver is useless in protecting a government entity from gross negligence and only good in protecting against ordinary negligence, which could have implications for recreational programs throughout the state.

In City of Santa Barbara et al. v. Superior Court, a disabled 14-year-old girl drowned in a city-owned swimming pool in Santa Barbara, Calif., while participating in a recreational activities program for developmentally disabled children. Prior to the girl’s participation in the program, her parents signed a waiver and release and express assumption of the risk agreement. By signing the agreement, the parents waived and released all liability related to the program, including potential negligence of the facility and its workers.

Nevertheless, after the girl drowned, the parents filed a lawsuit, alleging that the city of Santa Barbara and its counselor acted negligently. Relying on the signed waiver release, the defendants moved unsuccessfully for summary judgment and summary adjudication. The defendants then petitioned the Court of Appeal, filing a writ of mandate.

The appellate court denied the petition, holding that the signed waiver agreement was effective and enforceable insofar as it concerned defendants’ liability for future ordinary negligence. However, the appellate court concluded that a release of liability for future gross negligence is generally unenforceable, and the agreement in this case did not validly release such liability.

The California Supreme Court agreed to address the second part of the appellate court’s decision, and found in prior cases a “rough outline” of the “type of transaction in which exculpatory provisions will be held invalid.” . . .

Taken from - http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/we ... /81922.htm

Case law in California has ALREADY approached the topic that Gross Negligence can invalidate an assumption of risk waiver. And if Forbes is worried about the uShPa's waiver being found invalid, . . . well Air California Adventure Inc. just may have displayed GROSS NEGLIGENCE in the law suit they're faced with.

Forbes must think that MANY high profile PG Training Schools pose a risk of committing Gross Negligence or why be worried? I need to read the whole linked article tomorrow. Important stuff to know about. But still, how's it Bob K's fault?

[Rick Masters]

It’s clear that the scapegoat is extremely powerful.
Scapegoats can turn conflict into peace.
This makes the scapegoat omnimalevolent;
if peace follows his killing, he must have been very bad indeed.
http://blakemasters.com/post/2457868380 ... s-18-notes


The ritual of "Sacrifice of the scapegoat" is based on the expectation that the problem will go away
once the scapegoat is sacrificed. Should the problem persist, another scapegoat will be sought, an so on, until no one is left.