[Free]

This seems to be something that a local San Diego lawyer would take interest in on a pro bono basis.
Judges look down on frivolous cases like this, and those who bring them.
Possibly ACLU would be interested in this.

The ACLU isn't what it's cracked up to be. The ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center are pretty much anti-American these days... and pretty much always. SPLC is, and was always worse. The ACLU may be catching up.

I've just decided to support this guy. Robert Barnes, Constitutional lawyer out of Hixon Tennessee.
https://www.freeamericalawcenter.com/

This is the anti-SPLC and ACLU counterbalance.
I'm going to join 'Citizens of 1776'.
https://www.freeamericalawcenter.com/join-the-fight
$17.76 a month.

Justice comes at a cost.
Become a member of the Citizens of ‘76.

Arm yourself as a citizen of Free America with the best defense you have: your Constitution. Join Free America Law Center today and enjoy voting rights on future cases, a Bill of Rights book series by Barnes Law School, a weekly podcast featuring constitutional expert Robert Barnes and exclusive invitations to future events for the Citizens of ‘76 and our nation’s leading freedom fighters.

[wingspan33]

Thank you so much for all the kinds words and suggestions regarding this lawsuit.
I'm still not sure how to deal with the whole thing, but emotional support is so greatly appreciated.

Hi Margie, I sent Bob an email with an attachment about a complaint I filed against a certain lawyer. I hope he has passed it on to you. Please understand that you've got many friends on your side here on the US Hawks! I really don't think you have anything to worry about.

BTW "ACA" stands for AIR CALIFORNIA ADVENTURE INC. They manage the Torrey Pines "Glider (aka Paraglider) Port". Are they doing a good job? If they were then why would they have to sue people for showing what truly goes on at Torrey Pines Glider (aka Paraglider) Port?

Suing people for positive information regarding what they do? Hmmmm, . . . Most lawyers wouldn't take such a case. It must be that Air California Adventure is NOT doing good things. Who'd a thunk. . . .

[Free]

My former lawyer and several friends have advised me not to make public statements about the case.

Posting the actual complaint is not a public statement. This is public information, right?
They had to publish what they think you said that broke the law. What was it, libel?
What was the actual language that hurt their feelings? Did you say something bad about them that you don't believe to be true?
They know they don't have a case they can win. They just want to shut you up by intimidation/expense.

[Bob Kuczewski]

They know they don't have a case they can win. They just want to shut you up by intimidation/expense.

I believe that's exactly their goal.

In our most recent rounds, I've been fighting to make my own recordings of my own deposition. I learned an important lesson from my service as an expert witness in the Hamby trial. USHPA's lawyer (Tim Herr) questioned me for a full day on camera. He asked me the same questions ten different ways trying to trip me up. I stuck to the truth and to what I knew and believed. But I never got a copy of my own video tape. From what I can tell, USHPA edited selected parts of that video to make me look bad and published it behind a protected web page for all USHPA members to see. Despite many attempts, I was never able to see what USHPA had published against me. That's true to this very day.

So when Robin Marien's lawyer (Saldana) demanded a deposition from me, I brought my own camera to make my own record. Saldana said that I didn't give them proper notice (which I now believe wasn't required), and so he took my first day of deposition without me being able to record it. The deposition wasn't completed after a full day, so we scheduled a follow on date. I did give proper notice before that date, but Saldana still complained and threatened me if I tried to record my deposition. He threatened to call the judge and to have me pay over $5,000 if I didn't comply with his demands. I stood my ground because I had read the law and I knew I was within my rights. Saldana halted the deposition, and subsequently filed a motion to demand $5,200 from me and to keep me from being able to make my own recording. We appeared before the judge this past Friday (September 13th), and the judge ruled (at least according to my understanding) only that I could not hold the camera myself during the deposition. Otherwise I was within my rights to make my own recording (presumably with either a tripod or someone else holding the camera). The judge also turned down Saldana's demand for $5,200 in sanctions against me.

The code section that I referenced was ARTICLE 3. Conduct of Deposition 2025.330:

(c) The party noticing the deposition may also record the testimony by audio or video technology if the notice of deposition stated an intention also to record the testimony by either of those methods, or if all the parties agree that the testimony may also be recorded by either of those methods. Any other party, at that party’s expense, may make an audio or video record of the deposition, provided that the other party promptly, and in no event less than three calendar days before the date for which the deposition is scheduled, serves a written notice of this intention to make an audio or video record of the deposition testimony on the party or attorney who noticed the deposition, on all other parties or attorneys on whom the deposition notice was served under Section 2025.240, and on any deponent whose attendance is being compelled by a deposition subpoena under Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 2020.010). If this notice is given three calendar days before the deposition date, it shall be made by personal service under Section 1011.

And here is section 1011:

TITLE 14. OF MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS [989 - 1062.20] ( Title 14 enacted 1872. )

CHAPTER 5. Notices, and Filing and Service of Papers [1010 - 1020] ( Chapter 5 enacted 1872. )

1011.
The service may be personal, by delivery to the party or attorney on whom the service is required to be made, or it may be as follows:

(a) If upon an attorney, service may be made at the attorney’s office, by leaving the notice or other papers in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, with a receptionist or with a person having charge thereof. ...

As far as posting the actual lawsuit against me or Margie, it's nearly an inch thick in paper and we haven't been given an electronic copy. I may look into posting it, but it's a low priority right now. It's mostly quotes from my city council presentations and pages from the U.S. Hawks. There is nothing libelous or slanderous in any of it, but by including enough of nothing they're hoping to convince a jury that it's really something.

[eagle]

Public Extortion By City Contract

Its Started with a Murder Case that resulted in a Wrongful DEATH Law Suit....
The David Jebb Murder case ~ SDPD DIRTY COP CLUB Cover Up

PAY THE DIRTY COP CLUB AND
SHUT THE F***K UP

~ WHILE WE PAY THEM UNDER THREAT ~

Public Extortion By City Council.jpg (32.6 KiB) Viewed 3959 times

[Free]

As far as posting the actual lawsuit against me or Margie, it's nearly an inch thick in paper and we haven't been given an electronic copy. I may look into posting it, but it's a low priority right now. It's mostly quotes from my city council presentations and pages from the U.S. Hawks. There is nothing libelous or slanderous in any of it, but by including enough of nothing they're hoping to convince a jury that it's really something.

I doubt that they ever want this to go as far as a jury. This is all about deep pocket easy money trying to to bully you into submission.
I hope that Free America Law Center can see this as an attack on free speech and make a national story out of it. ACA doesn't want the publicity but is playing hard ball that is going to backfire. Forgive me for thinking if they were going to sue someone for libel they would have to say in their initial complaint that on this particular day, someone said this bad, untrue thing about us that hurt our feelings. This is what the bad man said, and this is why it is not true.

The onus is on them to spell it out in black and white and prove ill intent. Instead what they do is drag you through the briar patch of a corrupt legal system where money is power. How much of that carnival joy ride income from public land use do you imagine they are spending to muzzle the truth? The legal procedure happening here is abuse of the system. The true slander here is in the video of the guys telling you that ACA told them that you were a child molester. It's not just in black and white, but in living, lying color!

If there is any justice this whole thing will turn around and bite them in the a**.

[eagle]

~ Yeah They killed there own instructor over this Power struggle,... right in front of me...Lied about it , while the police did there cover story...... AND and then came after Me....
Contemplated Murder

They Killed him and then wrote the False Report

AND I WAS THERE ....

Scaring Margie or anyone else is NO Problem and as I/WE ARE Paying them,....
GOOD JOB CITY COUNCIL

[Free]

This sounds very dangerous.
For your own protection you should post all you know. It looks like you cant go to the authorities.
We don't know what you know.
They want to shut you up.
Protect yourself and document what you know.

[Free]

The initial complaint should be made available from the Courthouse at some point. I would like to see what ACA came up with to tell the judge they had a case to begin with.
Then two days of badgering depositions? Wow. Why would it take so much time to get to the point? How many ways can a lawyer ask, 'Bob, did you say this bad thing about this fascist corporation that feeds off the public teat with free rent/city collusion?'
I would think to prove libel, what someone says would have to be a lie that they didn't believe to be true, in order for it to be a crime.
We still don't know what ACA lawyers think was offensive. That should have been spelled out in the original complaint and that shouldn't have taken more than a few pages?

[Bob Kuczewski]

I was in court again this morning.

Christopher Saldana (ACA's lawyer) requested an Ex Parte hearing with the Judge to clarify the status of my ability to record my deposition. The judge reviewed 2025.330 (c) as highlighted here:

ARTICLE 3. Conduct of Deposition [2025.310 - 2025.340] ( Article 3 added by Stats. 2004, Ch. 182, Sec. 23. )

2025.330.
(a) The deposition officer shall put the deponent under oath or affirmation.

(b) Unless the parties agree or the court orders otherwise, the testimony, as well as any stated objections, shall be taken stenographically. If taken stenographically, it shall be by a person certified pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 8020) of Chapter 13 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code.

(c) The party noticing the deposition may also record the testimony by audio or video technology if the notice of deposition stated an intention also to record the testimony by either of those methods, or if all the parties agree that the testimony may also be recorded by either of those methods. Any other party, at that party’s expense, may make an audio or video record of the deposition, provided that the other party promptly, and in no event less than three calendar days before the date for which the deposition is scheduled, serves a written notice of this intention to make an audio or video record of the deposition testimony on the party or attorney who noticed the deposition, on all other parties or attorneys on whom the deposition notice was served under Section 2025.240, and on any deponent whose attendance is being compelled by a deposition subpoena under Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 2020.010). If this notice is given three calendar days before the deposition date, it shall be made by personal service under Section 1011.

(d) Examination and cross-examination of the deponent shall proceed as permitted at trial under the provisions of the Evidence Code.

(e) In lieu of participating in the oral examination, parties may transmit written questions in a sealed envelope to the party taking the deposition for delivery to the deposition officer, who shall unseal the envelope and propound them to the deponent after the oral examination has been completed.

(Amended by Stats. 2005, Ch. 294, Sec. 8. Effective January 1, 2006.)

The judge also reviewed 2025.340 (c) as highlighted here:

ARTICLE 3. Conduct of Deposition [2025.310 - 2025.340] ( Article 3 added by Stats. 2004, Ch. 182, Sec. 23. )

2025.340.
If a deposition is being recorded by means of audio or video technology by, or at the direction of, any party, the following procedure shall be observed:

(a) The area used for recording the deponent’s oral testimony shall be suitably large, adequately lighted, and reasonably quiet.

(b) The operator of the recording equipment shall be competent to set up, operate, and monitor the equipment in the manner prescribed in this section. Except as provided in subdivision (c), the operator may be an employee of the attorney taking the deposition unless the operator is also the deposition officer.

(c) If a video recording of deposition testimony is to be used under subdivision (d) of Section 2025.620, the operator of the recording equipment shall be a person who is authorized to administer an oath, and shall not be financially interested in the action or be a relative or employee of any attorney of any of the parties, unless all parties attending the deposition agree on the record to waive these qualifications and restrictions.

(d) Services and products offered or provided by the deposition officer or the entity providing the services of the deposition officer to any party or to any party’s attorney or third party who is financing all or part of the action shall be offered or provided to all parties or their attorneys attending the deposition. No service or product may be offered or provided by the deposition officer or by the entity providing the services of the deposition officer to any party or any party’s attorney or third party who is financing all or part of the action unless the service or product is offered or provided to all parties or their attorneys attending the deposition. All services and products offered or provided shall be made available at the same time to all parties or their attorneys.

(e) The deposition officer or the entity providing the services of the deposition officer shall not provide to any party or any other person or entity any service or product consisting of the deposition officer’s notations or comments regarding the demeanor of any witness, attorney, or party present at the deposition. The deposition officer or the entity providing the services of the deposition officer shall not collect any personal identifying information about the witness as a service or product to be provided to any party or third party who is financing all or part of the action.

(f) Upon the request of any party or any party’s attorney attending a deposition, any party or any party’s attorney attending the deposition shall enter in the record of the deposition all services and products made available to that party or party’s attorney or third party who is financing all or part of the action by the deposition officer or by the entity providing the services of the deposition officer. A party in the action who is not represented by an attorney shall be informed by the noticing party that the unrepresented party may request this statement.

(g) The operator shall not distort the appearance or the demeanor of participants in the deposition by the use of camera or sound recording techniques.

(h) The deposition shall begin with an oral or written statement on camera or on the audio recording that includes the operator’s name and business address, the name and business address of the operator’s employer, the date, time, and place of the deposition, the caption of the case, the name of the deponent, a specification of the party on whose behalf the deposition is being taken, and any stipulations by the parties.

(i) Counsel for the parties shall identify themselves on camera or on the audio recording.

(j) The oath shall be administered to the deponent on camera or on the audio recording.

(k) If the length of a deposition requires the use of more than one unit of tape or electronic storage, the end of each unit and the beginning of each succeeding unit shall be announced on camera or on the audio recording.

(l) At the conclusion of a deposition, a statement shall be made on camera or on the audio recording that the deposition is ended and shall set forth any stipulations made by counsel concerning the custody of the audio or video recording and the exhibits, or concerning other pertinent matters.

(m) A party intending to offer an audio or video recording of a deposition in evidence under Section 2025.620 shall notify the court and all parties in writing of that intent and of the parts of the deposition to be offered. That notice shall be given within sufficient time for objections to be made and ruled on by the judge to whom the case is assigned for trial or hearing, and for any editing of the recording. Objections to all or part of the deposition shall be made in writing. The court may permit further designations of testimony and objections as justice may require. With respect to those portions of an audio or video record of deposition testimony that are not designated by any party or that are ruled to be objectionable, the court may order that the party offering the recording of the deposition at the trial or hearing suppress those portions, or that an edited version of the deposition recording be prepared for use at the trial or hearing. The original audio or video record of the deposition shall be preserved unaltered. If no stenographic record of the deposition testimony has previously been made, the party offering an audio or video recording of that testimony under Section 2025.620 shall accompany that offer with a stenographic transcript prepared from that recording.

(Added by Stats. 2004, Ch. 182, Sec. 23. Effective January 1, 2005. Operative July 1, 2005, by Sec. 64 of Ch. 182.)

The judge ruled that I would be able to record my deposition pursuant to 2025.330(c).