[Bob Kuczewski]

This isn't going to turn into the Trial of The Century is it?

It already is the Trial of The Century ... for me!!!

Tomorrow (January 20th, 2015 at 1:30pm) will be the 4th day of the trial, and the "prosecution" or "plaintiff" is still presenting their case. They had appealed to the judge to "mix and match" between two sections of the law (one for civil harassment restraining orders and the other for workplace violence restraining orders). The two laws are almost identical and repeat about 90% of the exact same content. This makes them independent (it's not as if one of them refers to the other as a "baseline"). So their differences should be uniquely applied to each section. Robin Marien filed a workplace violence restraining order, but his lawyer was trying to argue to have some aspects of the other section applied. I'm not guilty of either section anyway, but the judge ruled (correctly in my opinion) that they needed to prove what was in the section that they filed.

So the case goes on. It's been 3 days already and Robin Marien's lawyer says he still has more witnesses to call. It seems to me that they're trying to accomplish 2 things: (1) bury me with legal costs, and (2) wear down our witnesses to keep them from being there to testify.

I have to admit that both strategies may be having some success. My lawyer has (fairly) asked for more money, and a number of witnesses have (fairly) stated that they can't just keep coming to court day after day. Robin, on the other hand, has made millions of dollars from his free lease at Torrey, and many of the people he brings to testify are his own employees - who don't have to ask their boss for time off ... day after day after day.

Despite all that, I am hopeful that justice will prevail.

[wingspan33]

GIVE 'EM HELL!, Bob

[Bob Kuczewski]

GIVE 'EM HELL!, Bob

That might not be the best wording for someone facing a Workplace Violence Restraining Order.   

But I know your heart is in the right place.

[wingspan33]

You know the original context of the exclamation, Bob?

From Wikipedia:

"In Bremerton, Washington, [Harry] Truman delivered a speech attacking the Republicans. During the speech a supporter yelled out "Give 'em Hell, Harry!". Truman replied, "I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it's Hell."

Do you think the expression fits okay in your situation?

[Bill Cummings]

Wingspan33,
I looked up Robin Marien on the members list at USHPA and I see that his membership is good until March of this year.
This to me is strong circumstantial evidence that he was a member at the time he filed against Bob for a restraining order. Robin Marien’s waiver should have been in effect at the time Mr. Marien filed.

As I recall, if I were to file against anyone, the waiver that I signed has me agreeing to only doing so in a California court and in that situation I must pay for my legal fees as well as the defendants.

I was wondering if Mr. Marien might find himself in the unenviable position of having to reimburse Bob K. for his expenses whether or not the restraining order is granted. What is your understanding on this issue?

[wingspan33]

Bill,

I will have to look at the language used in the USHPA's waiver. My personal focus has had to do with legal issues between myself and the USHPA and how the waiver applies. When two members of the USHPA act legally against each other (in the context of either hang gliding and/or paragliding activities) I'm not certain. But it's a very good question. I'll have to look into it.

As things stand, the judge may rule that Robin Marien pay Bob K's legal expenses. In speaking with Bob, and based on my experience, I don't see those who filed for the restraining order winning their case. The judge may even consider the application for a restraining order as intentionally malicious.

I expect that Bob now knows how things concluded - unless the judge has scheduled ANOTHER day in Court!

Wingspan33,
I looked up Robin Marien on the members list at USHPA and I see that his membership is good until March of this year.
This to me is strong circumstantial evidence that he was a member at the time he filed against Bob for a restraining order. Robin Marien’s waiver should have been in effect at the time Mr. Marien filed.

As I recall, if I were to file against anyone, the waiver that I signed has me agreeing to only doing so in a California court and in that situation I must pay for my legal fees as well as the defendants.

I was wondering if Mr. Marien might find himself in the unenviable position of having to reimburse Bob K. for his expenses whether or not the restraining order is granted. What is your understanding on this issue?

[wingspan33]

I expect that Bob now knows how things concluded - unless the judge has scheduled ANOTHER day in Court!

In talking with Bob last night, it seems that there WILL be ANOTHER day in Court! (on Feb. 9th?) . . . Holly Moley!

Perhaps Bob can give us a brief rundown/update on what happened on Monday?

[Bill Cummings]

I saw the stills from the video at the beginning of this thread.
It shows which person advanced on the other. Was it jacmac that vouched for the video after watching the whole thing?

I have a feeling that this video will rule the day in court but my feelings of apprehension, anxiety, nervousness that justice will slip through the fingers of the blindfolded lady (bitch) holding the scale says volumes about my faith in the legal system. Notice that I said legal system and not justice system.

Bob is being tried in a court of law not a court of justice.
Justice and law partnering up together is a crap shoot.

Reality is consensual.
Even the cases that go all the way to the Supreme Court at times comes down to a 5/4 decision. Some have to be wrong and some have to be right (maybe it's neither) but yet it is deemed to be law once the justices (give me a break) decisions are tallied.
To wish someone going to court luck maybe the most anyone can do.

[wingspan33]

Hey Bill,

I looked into the details of the USHPA's waiver and the significant part involves "Sports Injuries" or damages connected with the "Pilot’s PARTICIPATION IN THE SPORT".

Since Bob was not flying, but rather standing around video recording training activities, I'm not sure that the USHPA Waiver would apply.

The other relevant part of the Waiver is what the undersigned is waiving. In this case, the signer is waiving their right to file a suit or make a claim against a "Released Party". I don't think that applying for a Restraining Order fits as a "suit" or as a "claim" against Bob (who would be a "Released Party" within the context of the waiver).

Now Bob could certainly file a suit to recover financial damages from Robin Marien and Air California Adventure Inc. in connection with their (malicious?) application for a restraining order (if the judge finds no basis for the order). The USHPA SOPs actually have a section that describes that it will not protect or advocate (or words to that effect) for members who act in an abusive or criminal manner (toward other members?). It would be my opinion, therefore, that a suit against Robin Marien and Associates would also fall outside the context of the USHPA's waiver and not violate its terms. That means that Bob would not have to pay their legal bills incurred as a result of his suing them to recover his legal bills. Tricky enough for you?

Now here's where the USHPA's waiver might come into play, . . . If a pilot repeatedly landed on and damaged other people's HGs or PGs and, as a result, was kicked out of the flight park - then sued the flight park owner . . . that odd situation could fall within the waiver. The crashing pilot would have to pay the legal fees of the flight park owner - even if they somehow won (but I'm only guessing on this one).

The typical problem that the waiver is meant to prevent is suits/claims against the USHPA or members of the USHPA due to flight related circumstances where injuries and/or other damages may be somehow linked to the USHPA or members of the USHPA.

[wingspan33]

Bill,

From my conversations with relevant parties, I think this judge is pretty fair minded. I would also guess that she is covering all the bases to be SURE that the complaining party is ABSOLUTELY unable to reasonably prove their (sworn to!) assertions.

I would go so far as to say that the judge may be giving Robin Marien and Associates lots of rope with which they may then hang themselves.

And lets not forget, . . . that she hears cases where people ARE dangerous and violent, and a very valid Restraining Order may just save someone's life. So the judge needs to be very certain of the lay of the land, so to speak.

But I can certainly understand your concerns about the "justice" system. I've personally experienced serious abuse and even violations of the law by more than one local JUDGE. Sometimes the Scale of Justice has a pound of corruption sitting on the opposite tray (before the case has even begun to be heard).

I saw the stills from the video at the beginning of this thread.
It shows which person advanced on the other. Was it jacmac that vouched for the video after watching the whole thing?

I have a feeling that this video will rule the day in court but my feelings of apprehension, anxiety, nervousness that justice will slip through the fingers of the blindfolded lady (bitch) holding the scale says volumes about my faith in the legal system. Notice that I said legal system and not justice system.

Bob is being tried in a court of law not a court of justice.
Justice and law partnering up together is a crap shoot.

Reality is consensual.
Even the cases that go all the way to the Supreme Court at times comes down to a 5/4 decision. Some have to be wrong and some have to be right (maybe it's neither) but yet it is deemed to be law once the justices (give me a break) decisions are tallied.
To wish someone going to court luck maybe the most anyone can do.