[wingspan33]

.

I was looking over some old posts to this thread and noticed the following as posted by Bob K himself. It involves text which Bob transcribed from the judge's decision in response to the malicious restraining order application made by Air California Adventure Inc.

There are two passages to which I want to bring people's attention -

The Judge wrote:

"While the filming . . . might cause a concern . . . , [BobK] appears to be legally permitted to be on the property . . ."

". . . while it is implied that Respondent interferes with Petitioner's business operations by being in a place where he is legally
permitted to be . . .

Since these words were used in a San Diego Court's Written Decision, and that decision includes determinations that Bob K was/is LEGALLY permitted to be at Torrey Pines City Park - including areas of that park specifically connected with flight activities. This being the case, for Air California Adventure Inc. personnel and/or City of San Diego Police to then (effectively) CONTRADICT/DEFY the judge's determinations - and claim once again (with clear malicious intent) that Bob K has since trespassed in the SAME PLACE - can be viewable as in contempt of the Court's previous findings and determinations.

One thing is certain, if Bob K was truly guilty of trespassing on (public) City Park property the judge would have included that in her decision. She did not. She states the opposite!

This gives Bob a VERY GOOD case to present to the DA connected with CAL. CIV. CODE § 52.1 : California Code - Section 52.1

[found here- http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CIV/5/d1/2/s52.1 ]

(He can also file such a complaint with the Court, on his own, if the DA refuses to cooperate.)


Text of the law -

California Code - Section 52.1

(a) If a person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes by threats, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney may bring a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief in the name of the people of the State of California, in order to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured. An action brought by the Attorney General, any district attorney, or any city attorney may also seek a civil penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). If this civil penalty is requested, it shall be assessed individually against each person who is determined to have violated this section and the penalty shall be awarded to each individual whose rights under this section are determined to have been violated.

(b) Any individual whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, has been interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with, as described in subdivision (a), may institute and prosecute in his or her own name and on his or her own behalf a civil action for damages, including, but not limited to, damages under Section 52, injunctive relief, and other appropriate equitable relief to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured.

(c) An action brought pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) may be filed either in the superior court for the county in which the conduct complained of occurred or in the superior court for the county in which a person whose conduct complained of resides or has his or her place of business. An action brought by the Attorney General pursuant to subdivision (a) also may be filed in the superior court for any county wherein the Attorney General has an office, and in that case, the jurisdiction of the court shall extend throughout the state.

.

.

[Bill Cummings]

What is the total penalty Bob could get if each offender had to pay up?

.

I was looking over some old posts to this thread and noticed the following as posted by Bob K himself. It involves text which Bob transcribed from the judge's decision in response to the malicious restraining order application made by Air California Adventure Inc.

There are two passages to which I want to bring people's attention -

The Judge wrote:

"While the filming . . . might cause a concern . . . , [BobK] appears to be legally permitted to be on the property . . ."

". . . while it is implied that Respondent interferes with Petitioner's business operations by being in a place where he is legally
permitted to be . . .

What is the total from each individual Bob could get?
Very good find. I could just explode that Bob hasn't brought this hammer down on all the perps.
Do the math for each person. What is the potential $ penalty total?

Since these words were used in a San Diego Court's Written Decision, and that decision includes determinations that Bob K was/is LEGALLY permitted to be at Torrey Pines City Park - including areas of that park specifically connected with flight activities. This being the case, for Air California Adventure Inc. personnel and/or City of San Diego Police to then (effectively) CONTRADICT/DEFY the judge's determinations - and claim once again (with clear malicious intent) that Bob K has since trespassed in the SAME PLACE - can be viewable as in contempt of the Court's previous findings and determinations.

One thing is certain, if Bob K was truly guilty of trespassing on (public) City Park property the judge would have included that in her decision. She did not. She states the opposite!

This gives Bob a VERY GOOD case to present to the DA connected with CAL. CIV. CODE § 52.1 : California Code - Section 52.1

[found here- http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CIV/5/d1/2/s52.1 ]

(He can also file such a complaint with the Court, on his own, if the DA refuses to cooperate.)


Text of the law -

California Code - Section 52.1

(a) If a person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes by threats, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney may bring a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief in the name of the people of the State of California, in order to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured. An action brought by the Attorney General, any district attorney, or any city attorney may also seek a civil penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). If this civil penalty is requested, it shall be assessed individually against each person who is determined to have violated this section and the penalty shall be awarded to each individual whose rights under this section are determined to have been violated.

(b) Any individual whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, has been interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with, as described in subdivision (a), may institute and prosecute in his or her own name and on his or her own behalf a civil action for damages, including, but not limited to, damages under Section 52, injunctive relief, and other appropriate equitable relief to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured.

(c) An action brought pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) may be filed either in the superior court for the county in which the conduct complained of occurred or in the superior court for the county in which a person whose conduct complained of resides or has his or her place of business. An action brought by the Attorney General pursuant to subdivision (a) also may be filed in the superior court for any county wherein the Attorney General has an office, and in that case, the jurisdiction of the court shall extend throughout the state.

.

.

[wingspan33]

What is the total penalty [you mean award?] Bob could get if each offender had to pay up?

Bill,

If a person is found guilty of violating the CA law I cite they can be required to pay "a civil penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000)." Multiply that times the # of individuals found guilty and you've got the number you're wondering about. Lets say that at least 4 people at ACA Inc. could be found guilty, . . . that's a potential of $100,000. And an individual can file their own complaint bypassing the local DA or City Attorney, if need be. Since cops are involved (with false arrest) a complaint like this may better be presented by the injured party - directly to the Court.

If it's possible to define the USHPA's BOD as violating this law, how many times can we multiply $25 K?

[Bill Cummings]

What is the total penalty [you mean award?] Bob could get if each offender had to pay up?

Bill,

If a person is found guilty of violating the CA law I cite they can be required to pay "a civil penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000)." Multiply that times the # of individuals found guilty and you've got the number you're wondering about. Lets say that at least 4 people at ACA Inc. could be found guilty, . . . that's a potential of $100,000. And an individual can file their own complaint bypassing the local DA or City Attorney, if need be. Since cops are involved (with false arrest) a complaint like this may better be presented by the injured party - directly to the Court.

If it's possible to define the USHPA's BOD as violating this law, how many times can we multiply $25 K?

[majiemae]

This is the video of Bob's incident at Torrey Pines on Nov 9, 2014.

[majiemae]

This is the video of the Hamby accident and tandem violations by USHPA Instructors:

[wingspan33]

The first thing I want to say is the Air California Adventure Inc. staff are truly THUGS! And one thing that is VERY clear in the video is how "smug" they are about committing assault and battery against Bob. Makes me particularly angry . That kind of attitude comes from a perception by Air California Adventure Inc. staff that they are immune from the enforcement of California and/or Federal laws.

Since we know that San Diego police officials have seen that video, it seems clear to me that serious corruption is going on.

Another thing is the vulgar language used (in a public park) by "Made" Marien. I think Gabriel Jebb and/or the other guy (?) also used obscenities. These are the people that the City of San Diego wants representing them at Torrey Pines City Park?

Thanks Bob for finally posting that video! To think, in the context of your Expulsion claims, that the u$hPa is effectively siding with Air California Adventure Inc. ? ! ? !

This video also makes the uShPa also look like a bunch of THUGS! If I were a current member, I would be ashamed of my "association's" leadership.

I'll post this now before I get even more pissed off.

[wingspan33]

In response to the "Brad's Tandem Video" -

I can't believe the reckless stunts that the pilot pulls while tandem flying a (maybe) 12 year old boy! At 19:00 minutes into the video you can see for yourself. And before that the pilot removes his helmet to demonstrate how he is fiddling with the canopy of the other TANDEM !!!!! pilot.

And that's not saying anything about the Hamby accident that happens at the beginning of the video. In connection with that incident the pilot informs someone (by cell phone?!?! during a tandem instructional flight?!?!?) that he was in the air when the incident occurred. The video shows that to to be a LIE! The tandem pilot was on the ground at the time that Mrs. Hamby had her accident. No, he didn't abort his flight after seeing that incident - he just went off on his merry way - taking a child on a tandem, to bring in how much $ to the business know as Air California Adventure Inc. Talk about the dregs of humanity!

I'm getting angry again so I'll post this message as it is, so far.

PS - And, once again, the u$hPa is (by implicit reference) on the side of Air California Adventure Inc. Tim Herr most definitely needs to be called up on ethics charges by the CA bar.

[Rick Masters]

I want to say something. I just can't put it into words.


It's a good thing we have the USHPA BOD to discipline real dangerous pilots.
Otherwise the sport could go south in no time.

[JoeF]

Brad's video:
PIC said to youth that the youth might get to see helicopter in the air (because of the collision/accident that just happened).
If one has solid reason to suspect that a rescue helicopter might be in the air soon .......
then one does not then get in the airspace.