wingspan33 wrote:The only thing that seemed to be confirmed by Bob's Court experience today is that SD Cops can violate a citizen's civil rights on multiple occasions (by arresting them and holding them against their will [otherwise called kidnapping] in a jail cell) and then act like nothing ever happened. And the SD City Courts are going right along with that.
Well, if it talks Corrupt, walks Corrupt, and smells Corrupt, then it dang well is probably CORRUPT.
Actually, the only place I've gotten any justice has been in the Court system. The judge saw through Robin's malicious restraining order case and ruled in my favor.
I believe that's why the City of San Diego has refused to file charges - that would put the matter in the Court system again, and it would be clear that they don't have a legal leg to stand on.
So while I do believe there is corruption in the City of San Diego, I haven't seen any proof of that in our Court system yet.
Join a National Hang Gliding Organization:US Hawks at ushawks.org View my rating at:US Hang Gliding Rating System Every human at every point in history has an opportunity to choose courage over cowardice. Look around and you will find that opportunity in your own time.
The court you dealt with was, I think, a Family (oriented) Court. But the Restraining Order Application made by Air California Adventure Inc. involved alleged (or potential?) criminal activity on your part (i.e., "work place violence"). While an utterly absurd claim, that application/accusation was part of the Criminal Justice system. That system initially restrained you from coming in contact with the "applicants" for how many months? (about 4?) Had you ignored that initial order (however based on false claims) the police would still have arrested you. So, this covers two of the 3 parts of the Criminal Justice System (law enforcement/investigation + the Courts)
Restraining Order situations are a hybrid of sorts since the initial "temporary restraining order" was simply issued to you. The police don't "investigate" in connection with the legitimacy of the claims being made by the "applicant" (aka, ACA Inc.). In this kind of case, the Judge does the "investigating". However, if a person is found to be a true/likely threat to one or more other people, then the Restraining Order can be made "permanent" (usually in place for 1, 2, or more years). There may also be an included requirement that the "offender" meet regularly with a probation official. That brings in the third part of the Criminal Justice System - the Correctional System.
My point with all this, Bob, is that you have, up to this point, found the Courts to be fair. But they are part of a three tiered Criminal Justice System. The first tier - the police - have falsely arrested you for trespass. Then the DA (?) (part of the second tier) has denied you access to the Court System to allow you to determine your innocence on those charges.
Also, the police have failed to take legal steps in your favor. That involves NOT investigating Gabe Jebb's commission of assault and battery against you. And again the first tier of the Criminal Justice System has failed you by, #1 Not acting to arrest persons suspected (by way of good evidence) of committing one or more crimes against you, #2 Not subjecting alleged criminals to the (required!) processes leading to the Criminal Courts, and #3 Acting to prevent alleged criminals (upon likely convicted) from being subjected to the Correctional System (the third tier of the Criminal Justice System).
So, I would modify my claim that the local San Diego Court System is corrupt to say that important parts of the local San Diego Criminal Justice System are corrupt.
The Judges in various Courts can be fair. But if you can't have your own day in Court - or file a criminal complaint that leads a criminal to their day in Court, then the "System" is busted/corrupt.
wingspan33 wrote:So, I would modify my claim that the local San Diego Court System is corrupt to say that important parts of the local San Diego Criminal Justice System are corrupt.
I second that modification ... and vote "aye".
Join a National Hang Gliding Organization:US Hawks at ushawks.org View my rating at:US Hang Gliding Rating System Every human at every point in history has an opportunity to choose courage over cowardice. Look around and you will find that opportunity in your own time.
City of San Diego Ethics Commission 1010 Second Ave, Suite 1530 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 533-3476 Fax: (619) 533-3448 Email: ethicscommission@sandiego.gov
Mission Statement To preserve public confidence in our city government through education, advice, and the prompt and fair enforcement of local governmental ethics laws. ------------------ The Ethics Commission is an independent department that does not report to the Mayor or City Council. It is a body of appointed volunteer City officials, formed in 2001 for the purpose of monitoring, administering, and enforcing the City's governmental ethics laws. The Commission is also involved with proposing new governmental ethics law reforms, conducting investigations, referring violations to appropriate enforcement agencies, auditing disclosure statements, and advising and educating City officials and the public about governmental ethics laws. The Ethics Commission is composed of seven members appointed by the Mayor from a pool of nominees nominated by the Council and City Attorney and confirmed by Council. At least one of the members of the Commission must be a person who has been a candidate for elective governmental office or otherwise held a high level position in a campaign for elective governmental office. At least two of the members must be attorneys in good standing with the California Bar Association. No more than three members may be registered with the same political party.
The Ethics Commission is charged with: monitoring, administering, and enforcing the City's governmental ethics laws and proposing new governmental ethics law reforms; conducting investigations, referring violations to appropriate enforcement agencies, and auditing disclosure statements; and advising and educating City officials, candidates, political committees, and lobbyists about governmental ethics laws. The Commission is governed by San Diego Municipal Code Chapter II, Article 6, Division 4, Sections 26.0401 to 26.0456. These sections were added June 5, 2001, by Ordinance 18945, and were amended on February 11, 2002, by Ordinance O-19034, and on December 6, 2007, by Ordinance O-19555.
Responsibilities The Commission's responsibilities include: providing training and education regarding governmental ethics laws to City Officials and employees, and candidates for City office and their staffs; issuing formal and informal advice and opinions to any person regarding the governmental ethics laws within the Commission's jurisdiction; reviewing campaign, lobbying, and conflict of interest disclosure statements; proposing procedures for conducting audits of campaign, lobbying, and conflict of interest disclosure forms; investigating and enforcing violations of City governmental ethics laws; reviewing of the City's existing governmental ethics laws, and proposing updates to those laws to the City Council for its approval
Ethics Commission Staff The Ethics Commission staff currently includes the following individuals: Stacey Fulhorst, Executive Director; 619-533-3477; sfulhorst@sandiego.gov Jennifer Blasier, Administrative Aide; 619-533-3417; jblasier@sandiego.gov Stephen Ross, Program Manager (Advice & Education); 619-533-3494; spross@sandiego.gov Lauri Davis, Senior Investigator; 619-533-3021; ldavis@sandiego.gov Rosie Gomez, Auditor; 619-533-3414; rgomez@sandiego.gov
News of this continued lawsuit has released restraint on Both Living(Dave) and non-Living ex-crew members of CV-8/CV-12 as to their own retaliation plan that could actually include levitation of gliderport structures for burial at sea.
Actual photos of USS Hornet Ghosts, the most haunted ship in the Navy, The most haunted place per square foot on earth.
RickMasters wrote:I want to say something. I just can't put it into words.
It's a good thing we have the USHPA BOD to discipline real dangerous pilots. Otherwise the sport could go south in no time.
Those videos are exactly what could have happened in the Torrey tandem abuse case. Except in the Torrey situation the pilots wouldn't have had thousands of feet to recover ... and they were each carrying child passengers.
Join a National Hang Gliding Organization:US Hawks at ushawks.org View my rating at:US Hang Gliding Rating System Every human at every point in history has an opportunity to choose courage over cowardice. Look around and you will find that opportunity in your own time.
I agree. My understanding of relative work is that it requires the informed consent of all participants. I assume the reason is to prevent those set on flying closely to other aircraft not do so without permission and this requirement ALLOWS THEM TO BE IDENTIFIED by authorities. Obviously, some soaring parachutists disagree -- despite the fact they were carrying children.
>>>> THEY WERE CARRYING CHILDREN!!! <<<<
Children cannot by law give informed consent and I am certain the parent/s were not informed of any intention by the soaring parachutists to perform relative work while carrying their children.
I do not understand why the City of San Diego did not yank the permit for the Torrey paragliding site immediately and put it up for bid to a responsible party.
The entire incident, as far as I can ascertain, was at first completely ignored by everybody except BobK and a few of his friends, which belatedly led to USHPA action after it was placed on his web site.
Regardless, I also believe the USHPA was complicit in this, in light of their close association with the Torrey concessionaire during the fake "trial" of BobK. All this is by far the most shameful episode in the history of the USHPA, in my opinion, and it will eventually backfire when certain people come to understand what really was going on. Those who remain USHPA members will also share responsibility for this.
I completely agree with the above statement of Rick Masters and it is very distressing to me as a USHPA member that the USHPA did not take action against the blatant disregard for the safety of children by the site operator of Torrey Pines.
It is my personal opinion that the officer’s of USHPA have completely departed from USHPA’s mission statement with regard to safety. I also believe the FAA tandem exemption should have a minimum age limit somewhere between age 14 and 16 for the protection of children. Are children under age 14 really engaged in tandem training? The minimum age for a student pilot for the operation of a glider (N-number) or balloon is 14 years of age FAR 61.83. The FAA tandem exemption should be the same.
The PDMC is a zone of NO RECOURSE. It is a zone where an emergency parachute will NOT HAVE TIME TO OPEN. It is the zone where soaring parachutists AND THEIR PASSENGERS die if anything goes wrong. It is a zone to be avoided. ----------------------------------- Hang gliding was fine. Ignored by the FAA. I repeat, our sport was okay. Then USHGA sought and received a tandem exemption for instruction. Most tandem instructors were pretty responsible and USHGA got away with that for a long time. A lot of instructors actually instructed people how to fly hang gliders. Then paragliding came along and USHPA glommed onto the tandem exemption and applied it to parachutes. Suddenly paragliding instructors began making middle class incomes. Under the knowing eyes of the USHPA BOD, the public was enticed to participate in a big way - but only as profitable, joy-riding cargo. The PDMC was ignored; never acknowledged; never discussed. This is the end. The grey area is no longer grey. You fools at USHPA have let paragliding destroy our sport. It's time to start over and get back to hang gliding as a solitary endeavor. If there is time. If it is still possible. ----------------------------------- CHAPTER 214. CONDUCT INSPECTIONS/EVALUATE AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AT AN AIRPORT OR AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITY http://fsims.faa.gov/WDocs/8700.1%20GA% ... 214_00.htm SECTION 1.... 5. GENERAL. A. Authority. Title 49 of the United States Code (49 USC) provides the Administrator with the authority to implement Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations through surveillance and inspection. The inspector is responsible for observing and evaluating aircraft operations in order to prevent accidents, incidents, or potential violations. A finding of an unsafe operation may develop into an enforcement investigation...
B. Evaluation Sites. This chapter covers evaluation of aircraft operations for the following types of airports: (1) Certificated, publicly owned airports and heliports. (2) Non-certificated, publicly owned airports, heliports, and seaplane bases. (3) Joint military/civilian airports. (4) Private airports open to the public. ... SECTION 2. PROCEDURES
1. PREREQUISITES AND COORDINATION REQUIREMENTS. ... 5. PROCEDURES. ... (5) Observe any marginal or unsafe operations in general: improper altitude in the traffic pattern, following other aircraft too closely, cutting in front of other aircraft. ... E. Action. ... (c) For violations and criminal investigations, see volume 2, chapter 182, Conduct an Investigation to Determine Compliance. For criminal activities, immediately notify local law enforcement officials, the FBI, and/or the Drug Enforcement Agency, as appropriate. (d) For complaints , see volume 2, chapter 181, Conduct a Complaint Investigation. ... 9. FUTURE ACTIVITIES. A. Possible increased surveillance and/or inspection. B. Possible enforcement action.
Home
