[Bill Cummings]

Radio communication is not required at uncontrolled airports.
If Robin M. wants the glider port recognized to be under positive control of Air Traffic Control (ATC) then he is good to go with the radio edict. His sail plane runway length will not permit an ATC designation. All that could ever be hoped for would be uncontrolled airport designation.
There goes his mandatory radio requirement under the rules set forth in the FAR/AIM. (Federal Aviation Regulations / Aeronautical Information Manual.)
If at any time in the past the glider port received any Federal, State, County, or City tax money and it becomes an uncontrolled airport, there are restriction prohibiting the barring of a tax payer from the use of the airport.
After a complaint the FAA will send a safety representative to investigate all of the goings on at the airport. Federal court expenses even before a fine are usually quite costly for the offending airport. The offending FBO making such a blunder will more likely be, “shown the door,” for stopping further possible tax infusion to the airport.
The goal of the USHGA/USHPA throughout its history is to be self regulating and not come under the full weight of the FAA regulations.
If Robin M. is working against that goal every means should be used by everyone in the USHPA to stop this misdirected course of action.
If Robin’s intent (rumor so far as I know at this point.) is to move the Torrey Pines Glider Port into the status of and airport this concessionaire will hurt the FREE flight gliding sport.
I’m not up on all the facts but about Robin’s intentions but I want my position known before things happen out of my scrutiny and are codified into law that protects a privileged business man to my detriment.
Office of the USHPA are you keeping a close eye on this situation?

[Jacmac]

Robin's assertion that Torrey Pines is an airport is ludicrous, but if you go back to the lease it clearly states in the Recitals:

WHEREAS, CITY and Flight Director/LESSEE desire to maintain Torrey Pines Gliderport as a historical non-powered flight park, and;

That pretty clearly shows that the city considers the site to be a park, not an airport. We all know what's going on here; Robin is looking for some way to grant himself the authority to ban people or control the site in other ways than the lease allows.

For one thing, if the site is declared an airport, then what are Robin's credentials to act as a flight director? What training in airport operations does he have? What government oversight is in effect for reporting violations of airport operations? There must be half a dozen violations of airport regulations right now. That's not including some of the conduct of the airport personnel, which is also reportable. Can of worms I say.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Robin's assertion that Torrey Pines is an airport is ludicrous ... Can of worms I say.

Robin's attempt to use San Diego Municipal code to declare Torrey Pines to be an "airport" threatens all sites within the city limits as well as any sites in other jurisdictions that might have similar wording in their laws.

Robin is an irresponsible individual, and USHPA should be coming down hard on him ... if they weren't in bed with him.

[Bill Cummings]

Concerning 1.2 of the now hold over lease agreement: (Snippet below)

With the Freedom of Information Act the City will have on file a copy to the City Manager “-----for such other related or incidental purposes as approved in writing by the City Manager and for no other purpose whatsoever.”
(I’m alluding to the rental of the hang gliding landing zone.)
With no record of approval from the City Manager 1.2 provides for ---- “Failure to continuously use the premises for said purposes, or the use thereof for the purposes not expressly authorized herein, shall be grounds for termination by the CITY.”

“The use of the premises for any unauthorized purpose shall constitute a substantial default and subject this lease to termination at the sole option of the CITY.”
Synopsis: No approval in writing by the City Manager - “Subject this lease to termination-----”

1.2 uses.JPG (55.64 KiB) Viewed 5077 times

[Bill Cummings]

1.3 of the Lease Agreement in my view pulls the teeth out of an advisory board even if the board were made up of representatives of the four sports at the glider port. Read carefully the Snippet below and watch for the word, “board,” with commas before and after the word, “board,”

1.3 council actions.JPG (28.48 KiB) Viewed 5077 times

[Bill Cummings]

1.7 of the hold over Lease Agreement (see Snippet below)
Note the last sentence in 1.7 “----Flight Director/Lessee shall diligently and in a creditable manner furnish services to the public in conformity with all applicable rules and regulations of the City of San Diego.” Then refer to 1.10 in the second Snippet down:

1.7 operations.JPG (27.61 KiB) Viewed 5075 times

1.10 sign.JPG (38.56 KiB) Viewed 5075 times

[Bill Cummings]

1.8 of the hold over Lease Agreement:

Free of charge.JPG (13.86 KiB) Viewed 5074 times

AND

cont--free of charge.JPG (17.59 KiB) Viewed 5074 times

When the hang gliding landing zone was rented out was it rented for free.
If not it was another violation of the lease agreement.

More violations to come concerning outside tandem fees.
Also the posting of the rules so that one may direct the arresting officer
to the posted rules that are required of the Lessee and not have to trust someone's word or phone display.

[wingspan33]

I understand that Robin Marien asserts himself as being the "majority stock holder" of Air California Adventure Inc.

But as I look at the lease it defines the "lessee" as Air California Adventure LLC - As owned by David Jebb. Now the California Secretary of State has defined this particular LLC as currently in suspended status. Meaning it can't do business within the State of California. Hmmmmm. Odd. There are no records of the lease ever being updated. Or any record of the concession ever being put (back) up for public bid.

As well, since a "Limited Liability Company" (owned by Jebb) is not the same as an "Incorporation" (majority owned by Marien) then the lease of record with the City is legally invalid - On Its Face. The business entity now operating at the site is NOT the same company. Not an LLC and not owned by David Jebb (the signer of the lease).

I particularly like the following:

San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 6: Public Works and Property,

Article 3: Public Parks, Playgrounds, Beaches, Tidelands and other Property

Division 2: Soaring or Gliding Activity

§63.0201 Soaring or Gliding Regulated

. . . .

(b) Any person who on any park, beach or other property owned or maintained
by The City of San Diego conducts or participates in any soaring or gliding
activity, including full scale gliding, hang gliding, and operation of radio–
controlled model gliders, . . . without first obtaining a permit from the City, or
whose permit has been revoked or suspended is guilty of a misdemeanor

It sure sounds to me like Bob was attacked by very true criminals. Those criminals have somehow decided, in violation of what are usually called "Municipal Codes" (often described as local laws) to operate a business on City property with no valid lease or "permit". That makes them criminals and the Assault and Battery they committed against Bob fits perfectly with those type of characters.


Next!

[Bill Cummings]

I understand that Robin Marien asserts himself as being the "majority stock holder" of Air California Adventure Inc.

But as I look at the lease it defines the "lessee" as Air California Adventure LLC - As owned by David Jebb. Now the California Secretary of State has defined this particular LLC as currently in suspended status. Meaning it can't do business within the State of California. Hmmmmm. Odd. There are no records of the lease ever being updated. Or any record of the concession ever being put (back) up for public bid.

As well, since a "Limited Liability Company" (owned by Jebb) is not the same as an "Incorporation" (majority owned by Marien) then the lease of record with the City is legally invalid - On Its Face. The business entity now operating at the site is NOT the same company. Not an LLC and not owned by David Jebb (the signer of the lease).

I particularly like the following:

San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 6: Public Works and Property,

Article 3: Public Parks, Playgrounds, Beaches, Tidelands and other Property

Division 2: Soaring or Gliding Activity

§63.0201 Soaring or Gliding Regulated

. . . .

(b) Any person who on any park, beach or other property owned or maintained
by The City of San Diego conducts or participates in any soaring or gliding
activity, including full scale gliding, hang gliding, and operation of radio–
controlled model gliders, . . . without first obtaining a permit from the City, or
whose permit has been revoked or suspended is guilty of a misdemeanor

It sure sounds to me like Bob was attacked by very true criminals. Those criminals have somehow decided, in violation of what are usually called "Municipal Codes" (often described as local laws) to operate a business on City property with no valid lease or "permit". That makes them criminals and the Assault and Battery they committed against Bob fits perfectly with those type of characters.


Next!

Bob I hope your lawyer looks into this. It may be that Robin M. lacks legal standing.
Wouldn’t it be prudent to have the protective order heard after your Dec 22 court date decision as to whether or not you were falsely arrested?

Robin M. may be gaming the legal system with the PO to muddy the waters.
The situation that Robin M. has placed you in makes me suspicious that Project Innocence should look back into his arrests that led to convictions in his past police work. Someone may have been maneuvered behind bars that never belonged there.
I’m fond of the saying: “When the clock strikes thirteen, It calls into question all previous information.”

[wingspan33]

Robin Marien of Air California Adventure Inc. lacks all kinds of standing!

But he still seems to be getting away with stuff

Perhaps the tide will change. All this involves a beech site after all.

Here's another snippet from the San Diego City Codes:

(e) Upon notification that a person holding a permit under Section 63.0201
is in violation of Section 63.0201(c)(1) or (3), the City Manager shall order a
hearing before a hearing officer, appointed by the City Manager, to be
conducted within Thirty (30) days of such notification. The City Manager
upon ordering such hearing shall mail by certified United States mail written
notice of such hearing to the person holding the permit at the address shown
on the permit currently filed with the City Manager. Failure to respond to such
notice shall be considered a surrender of such permit.

It doesn't say who has a right to "notify" the City (manager?). There just has to be a notification made. Seems like it would be easy enough to submit AMPLE hard evidence to have a hearing ordered.

Hmmmmmmmm, . . .