[wingspan33]

I think this information needs its own topic. It should be out in the open for any member or visitor to see and consider.

Posted yesterday 4/21/15 in the "Expulsion" topic -

I found this (see "Original Message" below) in my In Box earlier today, apparently forwarded to me from the original receiver of the message.

Seems important to me and pretty clearly connected with the u$hPa BOD's expulsion proceedings against Bob K.

Seems that u$hPa's number ONE reason for expelling Bob K just may fit within the description of "criminal acts". 19 BOD members and one US Corporation guilty? I'd call this a very serious and REAL game of (u$hPa) Monopoly!

And for those that haven't visited the Oz Report Forum * recently, . . . On page 47 of the "Goodbye Bob K" thread is a post by username "spec out hi". It helps make better sense of the below info. [ link - http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... &start=468 ]

* Since not too long ago, you can see everything on the Oz forum without needing to logging in.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Complaint Details Per Conversation with H. S. 4/15
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015
From: ATR-OPS Citizen Complaint Center <Antitrust.Complaints@usdoj.gov>
To: <xxx_x@xxx.com>

Dear Concerned Citizen:

Thank you for contacting the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Upon careful review of your complaint, the Citizen Complaint Center has determined that your concerns are more appropriately handled by the Criminal Division, a different division of the U.S. Department of Justice. If you have not already done so, you may wish to express your concerns to the Criminal Division. . . .

We appreciate your interest in the enforcement of the federal antitrust laws and we hope you are able to resolve your concerns.

Sincerely,

Citizen Complaint Center
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Department of Justice
Criminal Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

[wingspan33]

For convenience, here's Spec Out Hi's related post from the Oz Report Forum

It's time to post this. Enough about how wrong/bad Bob K is. The following has been hinted at for a few weeks. Somebody doing a little research produced the TRUTH about who's in the wrong here. Every member of the USHPA should know the following –

From - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2

U.S. Code Title 15, Chapter 1, § 2 - Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.


Results of USHPA’s BOD vote to expel Bob K from its membership (seriously threatening his right to fly)

Region 1: Mark Forbes Yes
Region 1: Paul Murdoch Yes
Region 2: Jugdeep Aggarwal Yes
Region 2: Josh Cohn Yes
Region 2: Jon James Yes
Region 2: Steve Rodrigues Yes
Region 3: Pete Michelmore Yes
Region 4: Bill Belcourt Yes
Region 4: Ken Grubbs Yes
Region 5: Josh Pierce Yes
Reg. 6,11: David Glover Yes
Region 7: Paul Olson Yes
Region 8: Michael Holmes Yes
Region 9: Felipe Amunátegui Yes
Region 9: Larry Dennis Yes
Region 10: Steve Kroop Yes
Region 10: Bruce Weaver Yes
Region 12: Paul Voight Yes
Region 12: Ryan Voight Yes

Total of 19 USHPA Board Members who voted to expel (aka, retaliate against) Bob Kuczewski for (#1 reason!) –

“Creation of at least two national hang gliding organizations with the stated purpose of competing with USHPA, one of which you currently control; ”

* * *

I’ll leave it to the reader to put 2 and 2 together. But for those with lessor math skills, for this equation the answer = 19 Felonies.

USHPA's Expulsion Vote and the following Expulsion Proceedings, as taken against Bob K, have been taken in bad faith. USHPA's attorney Tim Herr should at least be able to complete that legal equation.

[wingspan33]

Seems that warnings had no effect. The criminals at the u$hPa have acted to cut Bob K off from the sports of hang gliding and paragliding. Well, that is, they have cut off his u$hPa insurance "fix". That "fix" being needed to fly at every u$hPa insured flying site around the country.

So, bare with me here, the u$hPa who uses its insurance program to secure flying sites can use the same program against non-members to exclude them from having access to the airways above the United States.

Odd how that sounds like some nation wide Corporation telling a private pilot/small plane owner that they can't fly out of 90+% of the airports in the USA.

But what about that law, . . .

U.S. Code, Title 49, § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace

(a) . . . Public Right of Transit.—

(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace. . . .

How the heck can an owner of a private plane have "a public right of transit through the navigable airspace" if they can't take of from virtually ANY airport?

Acting to restrict access to a very large % of airports infringes on that airplane owner's "RIGHT of transit through the navigable airspace" above the USA. The link is implicit. EVERY aircraft requires an area to take off and land so that they MAY "transit through the navigable airspace".

In expelling Bob K from the u$hPa, the BOD has acted against his civil rights as a citizen of the USA.

Oh, and they've also acted against him for "threatening" their precious Monopoly. Which brings us back to their status as Felons. Very arrogant felons it seems.

Tomorrow is another day.

[JoeF]

Excellent point wingspan33,
This matter of access freely to the airspace is core matter. Shall we start a focused topic on the matter for itself; I will invite you to start that topic? Then I will follow in as here. But here is a following note to your start. Yet the question over the BOD$ action relative to the involved rights are important. Close topic thread is viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1812#p11224

Access to public seashore and the ocean's navigable waters? Land access is required and reserved some to give equitable (not complete yet) access. Landowners in general are not allowed to land-lock the public from access to the seashore and ocean.
One start site for exploring this matter (and then the parallel for access to the public airspace)
http://www.beachapedia.org/Beach_Access

I envision easily that the City of San Diego cannot fairly give all the rights to the airspace entry function (land issue) to a Concessionaire. For equity relative to the airspace, the public of FAR 103 is to be given an open gate place to enter the airspace in the public park, just as the City gives land access to the seashore and ocean. All such should coordinate with a stopping of the Concessionaire selling a lie embedded in their push to control the airspace, as the airspace is not privatized; the airspace remains open via the FAA. One land pad could serve both functions: Concession and Non-Concession; just take turns equitably. We do not force ratings on surfers, swimmers, runners ... before they enter the changing and sometimes dangerous surf; the open gate to the airspace should go no further than the FAA requires. If the Concession wants to set their customership screen, be that as it may; but let not the Concessionaire over-step on pilots beyond what the FAA requires; two separate realms at the site: legitimate business, if so; and open public recreational launching. Both can coexist with little oversight of an equitable body. A court should find the justice of equitable access to public airspace.

The matter seemingly has not yet been tested for Torrey Pines airspace. A HG pilot unrated by any private ORG paying no fee to a private corporation Concessionaire may fly legally in the airspace; he or she is not required to have any kind of insurance and not have third-party insurance either, and not required to have any membership in any private club or association. Such a pilot who follows FAA rules and FAR 103 will be in his or her rights as a USA citizen. The City of San Diego with all of its coastline cannot across-the-board legally cement "NO ACCESS WHATSOEVER" to the airspace without compelling cause in coordination with State and Federal agents. In practice, cities sometimes get away with inequitable practices until enough interest and action occurs to right things; sometimes Cities are not aware how they might be breaking laws and equity. In City of San Diego case, the Torrey airspace has been a century-long place for entering the airspace off public lands, mostly without a Concession constraint. The lie TGP concession is pushing about the airspace control is a break of the public trust; the unearned clout gathered is increasingly bringing ills to set of public rights of recreation.

[wingspan33]

Joe,

I will create a new thread on the (civil) Right to Navigate the Airways. I'll start off by quoting the law.

In the current situation it could be best if a Federal law suit was filed. Such a case would need to explicitly link actions to restrict pilots from the use of take off and landing facilities as being a violation of a citizen's right to navigate the US airways.

And your beach example is very similar. If every citizen had a civil right to swim in the ocean, how can that be possible if access to the water via the beach, is not allowed, by some private party? Such a situation nullifies and interferes with the "civil right to swim in the ocean".

[Bill Cummings]

Wingspan33,
In Arizona if there is public land in back of someone’s property and there is a gate on the private property and the road leads to the public land they have a law where the AZ Fish And Game laws come into play.

It is typical there for a person to stop their vehicle at the gate and get out and go the post that has the Fish and Game cards to be signed including you license plate number, hang a mirror numbered tag with a corresponding card to be placed in the mail slot on the post. I don’t remember if there was a fee but if there was it was small or I would have gone postal. So the gate could be opened and the vehicle has to stay on the road and go directly to public land.

The illegal private property owners do it like this.
They put a combination lock on the gate with a sign that says for access call this phone number (whatever #). They screen their calls with an answering machine and don’t pick up. You never find out what the combination is. You go home.
I have written letters to the three different land owners behind the one gate asking for the combination after giving them all my contact information. And asking them to call me collect or mail the information to me in the self addressed envelope, postage paid. === NOTHING.
Is it worth the trouble to take the crooks to court?
No I will not put up with that irritation.
It takes someone like Bob to tolerate that level of low life's.
I think that's really how life works. If someone is being a jerk they will only yield to a bigger jerk. (talking about actions here not Bob)

[wingspan33]

Bill I followed up on your above post over on the "Right to Navigate" thread.