[Bob Kuczewski]

Congratulations, BobK.

Hi Joe,

That number   5   is starting to grow on me.     

Sincerely,
Bob Kuczewski
March 5th, 2015

[eagle]

The UNFORTUNATE TRUTH
There Will be More Work ~ Just to Keep Our Freedom

~ Did I Mention Peace & Harmony Between Our Leaders, Hang Glider & Para Pilots ~

Do It for Everyone.jpg (33.19 KiB) Viewed 5004 times

[Bob Kuczewski]

That's a beautiful - and quite fitting - picture. You have both the eye of an eagle and the eye of an artist. Thanks!!

Also I sent a brief message to the Torrey Hawks last night:

Hello Fellow Torrey Hawks!!

March 8th will be the Second Sunday in March, and we'll be holding our regular Second Sunday meeting / fly-in at the Torrey Pines Gliderport. I look forward to being there.

The forecast at this time is somewhat marginal with light west winds predicted from 10am to 4pm. For an update on the forecast, please visit our handy links page at:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=34

Also, earlier today the Superior Court of California issued a ruling denying and dismissing the Restraining Order that was sought by Robin Marien against me at Torrey Pines. You can read more on this action at:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1629

I won't go into details here, but I will strongly advise all pilots who fly at Torrey Pines to equip themselves with video recording equipment at all times to protect themselves against false claims. There's no doubt in my mind that I would have had a much more difficult case without my own recording of the November 9th, 2014 incident.

Finally, I want to thank the many many members who took their time and paid their parking (day after day, and month after month) to be witnesses in this case. There's a saying that all evil needs is for good men to do nothing. The good men (and women) of the Torrey Hawks did not "do nothing", and I am indebted to everyone who stood up for justice. Thank you very very much.

Sincerely,
Bob Kuczewski
Club Secretary - Torrey Hawks Hang Gliding Club
858-204-7499

Here are a few of the replies from the members of the Torrey Hawks:

I have followed these e-mails, and I am truly inspired by your persistent pursuit of justice in the face of injustice and am glad that you have been vindicated at last. Hopefully, this will make them think twice before pulling a stupid stunt like this again.

Congratulations Bob! I’m glad this came out the way it should have.

SWEET JUSTICE!

Let's hope this is the beginning of the end for the current Torrey Pines Concessionaire.

Congratulations Bob.

Hi Bob,

I am happy for you that your case came to a just resolution in your favor. I am sorry that you had to endure this deal.

Best regards

Congratulations on your victory Bob! Thank you for your bravery and God bless!

Congratulations Bob. I admire your willingness to seek and demand justice against these corrupt jerks and thugs. The same thing has happened in Skydiving but in those cases the property is leased or owned by the drop zones leaving no real course of action for the victims. You are a true hero in my eyes. Now I hope you consider further action against these jerks. A law suite comes to mind.

Good for you Bob Kuczewski, going the distance! Thank you on behalf of all pilots past and present.
Have you considered suing for false arrest and perhaps applying for the concession yourself?

[Bob Kuczewski]

From the Court ...

The judge issued an 11 page written ruling on the case. I don't have time to transcribe the whole thing right now, but let me quote just a few sections. Note that I am referred to as the "Respondent" and the Robin's company is referred to as the "Petitionoer".

There is no dispute as to the fact that the respondent has not committed an unlawful act of violence The only two issues raised by the Petitioner are: 1) stalking and 2) credible threat of violence.

  :

1) Stalking:

PC 646.9 defines stalking as follows:

(a) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family is guilty of the crime of stalking, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison.

The Respondent's conduct does not fall within the above definition of stalking. He has not followed any of the employees/owner/operators home or elsewhere. His actions are limited to filming and videotaping in a public forum and bringing up irregularities in the operation of the Glider Port business. Furthermore, Respondent's conduct does not appear to be directed at a specific person but rather the Glider Port as an entity. Further, there does not seem to be facts which support malice or that any employee reasonably fears Respondent will cause an individual direct harm. While the filming in close proximity might cause a concern because it is a distraction, he appears to be legally permitted to be on the property filming. Thus, it does not appear there are sufficient facts to support the conclusion Respondent has engaged in stalking as defined by PC 646.9.

  :

2) Credible Threat of Violence:

  :

In the present case, while it is implied that Respondent interferes with Petitioner's business operations by being in a place where he is legally permitted to be, there is no indication Respondent has caused harm or intends to cause harm to any of Petitioner's employees. Under California law Civil Code Sec. 1708.8, it is not per se illegal for someone to film another in a public place regardless of whether there is a physical trespass or not.... (Civ. Code, secion 1708.8). Use of the camera in a public forum is clearly acceptable but they cannot be used to harass or invade the privacy of another. Petitioner has not proven that Respondent has violated any privacy laws.

If Petitioner believes that Respondent's filming while he is standing in the restricted area causes safety concerns due to distraction for the other pilots or trainers or trainees, then Petitioner as flight director and operator of the premises may place signs in the restricted area asking pilots not to film while standing in the restricted area and direct them to take pictures from outside of that restricted zone; but Petitioner has never done this.

  :

The court finds that Petitioner has not met his high burden of proof to prove workplace violence with clear and convincing evidence. The temporary restraining order is therefore denied and dismissed.

[brianscharp]

Congratulations Bob. Maybe your return to Torrey could double as a google mapping.
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/tech/Goo ... 59961.html

[Bob Kuczewski]

Congratulations Bob. Maybe your return to Torrey could double as a google mapping.

So where can I get one of those?

[brianscharp]

You might need to be a Google employee.

Google couldn't use its famous satellite technology or Google Cars on the narrow trails, so it outfitted operators with customized Trekker backpacks. The 40-pound units have a 360-degree spinning camera with 15 lenses.
Google employees spent three months hiking the trails, which also included Tomales Bay, Angel Island, and Marina State Beach in Monterey County.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y6rQLiFib0

[Merlin]

I have to say Bob, I'm trying to wrap my head around the first piece of good news I've had in this winter-from-hell. Congratulations. It feels like the ice is breaking up...

[Rick Masters]

Bob, now that you've had a chance to catch your breath, I would like you to report on the actions of the U$hPA during your trial.

What offers of support did you receive as a member of the U$hPA?
What statements did the U$hPA make on your behalf?
How often did U$hPA representatives discuss your case with you, a U$hPA member?
How did the U$hPA representatives present themselves during the trial?
When did the U$hPA advise the other party to drop the case against you?
How much money did the U$hPA spend in your defense?
How much in membership funds was spent by the U$hPA during your trial?
What statement was issued on your behalf by the U$hPA upon recognition by the court that you had done no wrong?
What admonishment was given by the U$hPA to the other party for interfering with a U$hPA member's rights?

[Bob Kuczewski]

Rick,

It would be very nice if I could say that USHPA offered support in several of the areas that you mentioned.
It would be reasonably nice if I could say that USHPA offered support in even one of the areas you mentioned.
It would be at least acceptable if USHPA just stayed out of it altogether.

But the truth was worse than any of those answers. The reality is that USHPA's lawyer - Tim Herr - was actively working to support the other side. He attended at least two of the hearings and in both cases he sat on Robin Marien's side of the courtroom. He worked with Robin's lawyer and he never offered to help me at all. It was disgusting to me that our dues help pay his fees.

Here are the specific answers to your questions:

• What offers of support did you receive as a member of the U$hPA?      None.
• What statements did the U$hPA make on your behalf?      None.
• How often did U$hPA representatives discuss your case with you, a U$hPA member?      Never.
• How did the U$hPA representatives present themselves during the trial?      Sitting with the prosecution.
• When did the U$hPA advise the other party to drop the case against you?      Never.
• How much money did the U$hPA spend in your defense?      Zero.
• How much in membership funds was spent by the U$hPA during your trial?      Unknown for them, but none for me.
• What statement was issued on your behalf by the U$hPA upon recognition by the court that you had done no wrong?      None.
• What admonishment was given by the U$hPA to the other party for interfering with a U$hPA member's rights?      None.

Long live the US Hawks!!