[Bob Kuczewski]

Members of the Board,

This topic has been an effort to try to address Michael's claims in a fair and orderly manner. I believe we've tried to conduct it as it might be conducted in a courtroom for 2 reasons:

1. Our justice system is one of the best in the world.

2. Many of the procedures in our justice system are already familiar to most of us through either personal experience or through the shared television programs of our lifetimes (Perry Mason, Matlock, Law and Order, etc).

But this is not a real courtroom, and the differences are showing. In a real courtroom, for example, legitimate and relevant questions must be answered or there will be real consequences (fines and/or jail for contempt of court). Similarly, in a real courtroom, relevant evidence can be subpoenaed with similar consequences for failing to deliver it.

We have no such power to compel Michael to answer questions or produce documents in his (or anyone else's) possession. So to get answers and evidence, we must rely on voluntary cooperation. Michael has not been cooperative with those requests.

My approach to proving my innocence to Michael's charges has been to show - sentence by sentence - that my statements were all true. I had hoped to get a decision by the Board - sentence by sentence - as well. The Board has already decided that Joe was unjustly treated. But what has not been decided is whether MICHAEL BELIEVED that Joe was unjustly treated. It has not been decided because Michael has refused to answer that direct question. In a real courtroom, the judge would likely direct Michael to answer the question or face contempt of court charges. But we have no such ability. Similarly, I've asked Michael to produce documents of his own posts and of Jack's responses in those topics. Again, Michael has not provided them, and they are not otherwise available to us. In a real courtroom, we could issue subpoenas for those documents with penalties for failure to produce them. But here we must rely on Michael's voluntary cooperation to provide them. He has refused.

By way of contrast, I've been very forthcoming with answers to direct questions as in this example:

So Bob to be clear, it is your position that Jack should be required to provide web space and band width on hanggliding.org to Joe even though Jack does not believe in promoting Joe’s USHRS?

No.

Bob agrees the owner publisher editor publisher should not be required to provide rebuttal space for opposing positions.

In this example, Michael was able to advance his argument because I gave him a direct answer. In this case, Michael attempts to draw a conclusion that's irrelevant to his complaint, but I answered him directly and truthfully to give him facts to work with. Michael has not returned that courtesy regarding very central issues.

So what can we do?

At this point, we might consider issuing our own "contempt of court" admonishment and try to issue a fair ruling with what we have. It might look something like this:

The U.S. Hawks Advisory Board has investigated Michael Grisham's "Cease and Desist" request to determine the truthfulness of the statement quoted in the complaint. The Board finds that Michael Grisham has refused to provide the key answers and evidence needed to resolve the matter. The Board further finds that Michael Grisham's refusal to cooperate makes the case unresolvable. Without such cooperation, the presumption of innocence must fall with the accused. The Board therefore finds that Michael Grisham's claims are not sustained and are hereby dismissed.

The Board does, however, agree that statements of opinion are best explicitly stated as such. So while many of the disputed statements are implicitly understood to be opinions, the Board directs that moderator's notes be added explicitly stating "The statements in this post should be interpreted as the poster's opinions and not as statements of undisputed fact." This moderator note will be added to all posts requested by Michael Grisham and agreed by Bob Kuczewski. If there is disagreement on which posts should require the moderator's note, the Board will decide each such dispute on a case by case basis.

If anyone would like to issue a motion to that effect, I would support it. Otherwise we can add it to the "buffet" of choices available to the Board.

[magentabluesky]

May we present Chief Justice Bob of the Kangaroo Court in the country of Nothing Land, a totalitarian oligarchy?

If you want to go to “real” court I will be happy to accommodate you.

Being stupid can be real expensive.

The Elements of the Case in an Analogy:

You and Scott can believe in Pink and Purple Fairies dancing on the head of a pin, if you so choose.

The problem is when I tell you I do not believe there are Pink and Purple Fairies dancing on the head of a pin and then you make the proclamation declaring Michael Grisham believes in the Pink and Purple Fairies dancing on the head of a pin and his motivation for his beliefs are he was threatened by the big bad bogey man.

Then when I tell you I was never threatened by the big bad bogey man, Bob explains to the world that the big bad bogey man is a nebulous form of dark matter in the universe who threatens everyone in this space and time.

You can have any belief or opinion you wish. The problem is when you tell the world that it is also my belief. It is not my belief. The problem is when you tell the world what my motivation are, based on an event that never happened, just a flat out lie.

I do not have to justify what my beliefs are too you except for the purpose of proving you are not accurately representing my beliefs and motives.

You were asked to stop representing my beliefs on December 3, 2018.

Bob, simply stop misrepresenting to the world what my beliefs and motive are.

Cease and Desist.

[Bob Kuczewski]

If you want to go to “real” court I will be happy to accommodate you.

Michael,

You brought your complaint to the U.S. Hawks Board. The U.S. Hawks Board can only operate within the confines of our own rules. If you wish to seek other venues, you are welcome to do so.

At the present time, this is my best recommendation to the U.S. Hawks Board:

The U.S. Hawks Advisory Board has investigated Michael Grisham's "Cease and Desist" request to determine the truthfulness of the statement quoted in the complaint. The Board finds that Michael Grisham has refused to provide the key answers and evidence needed to resolve the matter. The Board further finds that Michael Grisham's refusal to cooperate makes the case unresolvable. Without such cooperation, the presumption of innocence must fall with the accused. The Board therefore finds that Michael Grisham's claims are not sustained and are hereby dismissed.

The Board does, however, agree that statements of opinion are best explicitly stated as such. So while many of the disputed statements are implicitly understood to be opinions, the Board directs that moderator's notes be added explicitly stating "The statements in this post should be interpreted as the poster's opinions and not as statements of undisputed fact." This moderator note will be added to all posts requested by Michael Grisham and agreed by Bob Kuczewski. If there is disagreement on which posts should require the moderator's note, the Board will decide each such dispute on a case by case basis.

I believe that is a fair response to your complaint given your refusal to answer reasonable questions. If you are willing to accept the Board issuing that decision, then I think we can resolve the matter quickly. But if it's your goal to ignore reasonable offers to take the matter to court, then you're welcome to do so as well.

With all of those thoughts in mind, if the Board were to pass such a decision, can you list the exact posts for which you would like to have such a moderator's note posted?

Thanks.

[magentabluesky]

Bob,

I have not refused to answer your questions.

You apparently do not have the comprehension skills to understand more than a yes or no answer.

This is Bob and weave Bob avoiding the elements of the complaint.

Furthermore as I said:

I do not have to justify what my beliefs are too you except for the purpose of proving you are not accurately representing my beliefs and motives.

You are not my spokes person and have not represented my beliefs and motives truthfully.

With regard to my motives, you are propagating a flat out lie to the facts and circumstances of events that did not happen.

The reasonable offer is for you to retract your flat out lie of the facts and event and apologize.

Stop misrepresenting my beliefs and motives.

Simple.

[JoeF]

HANG GLIDING BINDS US TOGETHER INTO A FAMILY

========================================================================
Family members sometimes misunderstand others in the family.
Begin today anew.
Expressions in posts are posters' opinions. Opinions may miss marks; information may tend to alter opinions. Opine again and again and again; hopefully with progress toward clarity of what is.
Begin today anew.
One may have an opinion about the beliefs and motivations of others; such opinions may be seen as starters of investigations for some purposes.
Hopefully one would avoid calling something a lie without knowing for sure that the something was with intention to deceive. An opinion with an error does not equate to intention to deceive.
May we deal simply with advancing ever closer to truth.

Fraud is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage.

I find no intentional misrepresentations in Bob's effort to explore various matters. On such basis, Bob does not lie or forward fraud. I hope all will apply the matter in the magentabluesky quote as we struggle to get ever closer to clarity on topics. And in harmony with such, may we all refrain from saying "lie" and "liar" and "fraud" when intentions to deceive are not absolutely known.

[JoeF]

Appreciating that opinions differ on some matters, and aiming to a good family life in this forum, and respecting Michael's respect of Family in hang gliding and his understanding written in his words that intent to deceive is core matter, then I am moved to make a motion with a hope of a new day soon for our good forum:

Motion (changes have been made):
   I move to the following for the Advisory Board to consider for seconding and possible voting:  
  The U.S. Hawks Advisory Board has investigated Michael Grisham's "Cease and Desist" and faces the request to determine the truthfulness of statements quoted in the complaint.
Cease and Desist Letter [Postby magentabluesky » Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:32 pm
http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3366 ]


The Board finds that Michael Grisham has yet to provide a key answer and evidence needed to resolve the matter. The Board further finds that Michael Grisham's apparent effective delay to give answer to a key question makes the case reasonably unresolvable at this time.[Did Michael Grisham have an understanding that Joe Faust was being unjustly treated ???] Without such answering, the presumption of innocence must fall with the accused. The Board therefore finds Michael Grisham's lead claims in the subject letter are not sustained and are hereby dismissed.

The Board does, however, agree that statements of opinion are sometimes best explicitly stated as such. the Board agrees with Michael Grisham's own admission in the letter: "Bob Kuczewski is entitled to his opinion." . So while many of the disputed statements are commonly implicitly understood to be opinions, the Board directs that moderator's notes be added explicitly stating "The statements in this post should be interpreted as the poster's opinions and not as statements of undisputed fact." This moderator note will be added to all posts requested by Michael Grisham and agreed by Bob Kuczewski. If there is disagreement on which posts should require the moderator's note, the Board will decide each such dispute on a case by case basis.  

[magentabluesky]

Read it carefully:

Bob,

I have not refused to answer your questions.

You apparently do not have the comprehension skills to understand more than a yes or no answer.

This is Bob and weave Bob avoiding the elements of the complaint.

Furthermore as I said:

I do not have to justify what my beliefs are too you except for the purpose of proving you are not accurately representing my beliefs and motives.

You are not my spokes person and have not represented my beliefs and motives truthfully.

With regard to my motives, you are propagating a flat out lie to the facts and circumstances of events that did not happen.

The reasonable offer is for you to retract your flat out lie of the facts and event and apologize.

Stop misrepresenting my beliefs and motives.

Simple.

[Bob Kuczewski]

  I second Joe's motion.  

I do ask the maker of the motion to remove the word "lead" in the sentence:

     "The Board therefore finds Michael Grisham's lead claims in the
      subject letter are not sustained and are hereby dismissed."

I ask this because the word "lead" is subject to interpretation. I do support and second the motion either way, but I would prefer removing that word for clarity. Otherwise we may find ourselves further revisiting this topic again and again.

Appreciating that opinions differ on some matters, and aiming to a good family life in this forum, and respecting Michael's respect of Family in hang gliding and his understanding written in his words that intent to deceive is core matter, then I am moved to make a motion with a hope of a new day soon for our good forum:

Motion (changes have been made):
   I move to the following for the Advisory Board to consider for seconding and possible voting:  
  The U.S. Hawks Advisory Board has investigated Michael Grisham's "Cease and Desist" and faces the request to determine the truthfulness of statements quoted in the complaint.
Cease and Desist Letter [Postby magentabluesky » Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:32 pm
http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3366 ]


The Board finds that Michael Grisham has yet to provide a key answer and evidence needed to resolve the matter. The Board further finds that Michael Grisham's apparent effective delay to give answer to a key question makes the case reasonably unresolvable at this time.[Did Michael Grisham have an understanding that Joe Faust was being unjustly treated ???] Without such answering, the presumption of innocence must fall with the accused. The Board therefore finds Michael Grisham's lead claims in the subject letter are not sustained and are hereby dismissed.

The Board does, however, agree that statements of opinion are sometimes best explicitly stated as such. the Board agrees with Michael Grisham's own admission in the letter: "Bob Kuczewski is entitled to his opinion." . So while many of the disputed statements are commonly implicitly understood to be opinions, the Board directs that moderator's notes be added explicitly stating "The statements in this post should be interpreted as the poster's opinions and not as statements of undisputed fact." This moderator note will be added to all posts requested by Michael Grisham and agreed by Bob Kuczewski. If there is disagreement on which posts should require the moderator's note, the Board will decide each such dispute on a case by case basis.  

[Bob Kuczewski]

Michael,

It is my opinion that you are not sincere about resolving the matter and that you just want to have us chasing our tails in a circle. My questions were very clear and to the point. They only required a yes or no answer. To this date, you have not given a clear response. For you to challenge anyone's "comprehension skills" over your ambiguous statements is insulting.

[wingspan33]

I vote   YES   on the last version of the text addressing M Grisham's claims.

I would also like to present a motion regarding a "Time Out" for Micheal Grisham. But I think that could be addressed after the vote on this issue is completed.