[Bob Kuczewski]

I am not a willing participant in the Spanish Inquisition or the US Hawks Inquisition.

Michael,

You are not on trial here. I am. The presumption of innocence rests with me. If it feels like you're on trial, it's likely because your complaint was not justified, and that's being carefully exposed.

You've made a claim and you provided specific evidence. I am carefully presenting my defense. The Board is carefully studying the issues and rendering decisions as I make my case. You've been able to inject your rebuttal at every point in the process. That may not be the immediate gratification you might get by Jack's impulsive banning approach to "justice", but it is much faster than you'll find in the court system. It's also much fairer than anything I've seen Jack or Davis or USHPA ever do.

Now I have asked you many times in this topic if you feel Joe was justly treated by Jack. I've offered that if you honestly state that Joe was justly treated, that I would revise and correct that part of my statement. You've consistently evaded answering that question. Why? You're willing to give us your theory of property rights (which I generally agree with), but that's NOT what I had said in my statements. My statements have been specifically directed at fairness and NOT property rights. I have stated, and I still believe it's true, that you agree with the Board that Joe was unjustly treated. Why won't you just come out state that? And if you really believe that Joe was justly treated, why won't you just come out and state that? Your evasiveness on that central question taints the sincerity of your complaint and undermines any claims for "damages" that you might try to assert.

[Bill Cummings]

AGREEMNT:
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated or any other material that may violate any laws be it of your country, the country where “US Hawks Hang Gliding Association” is hosted or International Law. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned, with notification of your Internet Service Provider if deemed required by us. The IP address of all posts are recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that “US Hawks Hang Gliding Association” have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time should we see fit. As a user you agree to any information you have entered to being stored in a database. While this information will not be disclosed to any third party without your consent, neither “US Hawks Hang Gliding Association” nor phpBB shall be held responsible for any hacking attempt that may lead to the data being compromised.
PARAPHRASED:
You agree not to post – slanderous – material that may violate any laws ---
BACKGROUND:
Libel is an untrue defamatory statement that is made in writing. Slander is an untrue defamatory statement that is spoken orally. Defamation is the communication of a statement either orally or in writing.

Below is Bob. K’s post:
Re: Hang gliding is in more trouble than I thought.
Postby Bob Kuczewski » Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:17 pm
(Only the bottom paragraph of Bob's post)

I'm sorry that anyone's feelings may have been hurt, but as I mentioned earlier, this entire fire drill is happening because one person (Jack Axaopoulos) has too long held his grip on the voices of good men like Joe and Scott and many others who've been banned. He also has his grip on the voices of Frank and Red and Mike and many others who aren't banned.

"This whole discussion is happening because those who aren't banned are afraid"

of being banned if they speak up for Joe (or anyone else). That's the root of the problem and it all goes back to Jack Axaopoulos and his near monopoly control of hang gliding discussions. That's what needs to be fixed, and abandoning the U.S. Hawks to go have more "happy talk" on hangliding.org is certainly not the solution.

Michael's claim:
Michael Grisham,

So let me restate the problem specifically,

"Bob Kuczewski is representing and promoting a lie"

as the truth about me and my position when he states I am not speaking out against Jack because

"I am afraid"

I will be banned from hanggliding.org.

DISCUSSION:
1) If any claim to know the workings of Michael's mind we might also assume he meant to claim libel and not
slander. (The words, deformation of character and libel are not found in the agreement but may or may not be assumed.)
2) When Bob states:

"This whole discussion is happening because those who aren't banned are afraid of being banned if they speak up for Joe (or anyone else.)"

everyone in this category (of members not banned.) fall into the fear of being banned and the assumption is that there is not a different reason.
3) To assume all others not posting in Joe's defense (of being banned) might not have cared, opened the thread, believed in the banning, chose not to post again at this site, or some other reason would in itself be unreasonable.
Although Bob K. might believe everyone not posting was afraid of being banned his belief does not make it a true fact.
4) I'm not seeing slander. I'm still wondering if it would meet the level of liable, deformation of character, or free speech on Bob's part.
5) Are there provable damages here?

CONCLUSION:
At this point and before taking my vote I'm still open to be persuaded. As it stands I think Bob could have chosen his words more carefully rather than to attribute fear to everyone not objecting to Joe's banning and in doing so Michael claims he was offended and possibly others.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Thanks for the analysis Bill. The question of people's motives is always an area of speculation and opinion. I believe that's implicit in any discussion that considers the motivation(s) of others. If that were to be considered - on its face - to be either slander or libel, then it would be impossible to have discussions involving those concepts. Given that a good portion of human discussion and activity is centered around such concepts, I would be surprised that any ruling prohibiting the speculation of motives (any "chilling" of such speculation) could be sustained in the courts.

Having said that, there is a related question that hasn't been answered.

Michael has claimed - and I believe it's true - that Michael did initially speak against Joe's banning on hanggliding.org. I would like to know what events intervened between the time that Michael did speak and the time that he ceased speaking that might have accounted for his change in behavior. I believe Jack did threaten some people for continuing to speak in Joe's defense, but there might have been other factors contributing to Michael's change of behavior. Michael, can you help us understand what events intervened to change your behavior from "speaking up for Joe" to "intentionally not speaking up for Joe"?

[Bob Kuczewski]

Also, I would like to continue going through my disputed post - section by section - to establish the truth (or at least reasonableness) of each section before any final vote is taken. For example, Scott has raised the valid question as to whether Michael was even aware of Joe's banning. To answer Scott's question, I believe there is solid evidence supporting that fact. I plan to present it when we get to that section of my disputed post, and that's why I'd like to take it one step at a time.

With regard to the procedure itself, I think any member of the Board can introduce any motion at any time. If it gets a "second" then the motion is "on the table" for discussion. A vote can be taken at any time. There is another commonly used mechanism in these kinds of proceedings known as "calling the question". If any Board member "calls the question" all debate and discussion is halted and a vote is immediately taken to decide if the motion is ready for a vote. If the vote on the calling of the question wins, then a vote on the main matter is taken without further discussion. If the vote on the calling of the question fails, then discussion can continue on the main motion.

We haven't really used the "calling the question" mechanism before because on-line discussions can continue to be debated for hours, weeks, months, and even years while we continue to do the other things in our lives. However, in a physical meeting, it's impractical to go on for long periods, so calling the question is a way to force an end point on a discussion if the majority agrees that it's time to vote. I'm making specific mention of it here so we all know what it is. The first time I heard someone "calling the question" was when Mark Forbes did it during a USHPA Board meeting, and I didn't really understand what was being done. I actually voted against what I wanted because the procedure was not explained. That's another advantage of on-line meetings. We can take time to educate ourselves on anything we don't understand.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Michael has not answered this request:

Michael has claimed - and I believe it's true - that Michael did initially speak against Joe's banning on hanggliding.org. I would like to know what events intervened between the time that Michael did speak and the time that he ceased speaking that might have accounted for his change in behavior. I believe Jack did threaten some people for continuing to speak in Joe's defense, but there might have been other factors contributing to Michael's change of behavior. Michael, can you help us understand what events intervened to change your behavior from "speaking up for Joe" to "intentionally not speaking up for Joe"?

Additionally, I would like to request that Michael produce the text of his protests against Jack banning Joe and how Jack responded to those protests and the protests of others. Many of these are no longer available to those of us who are not members of hanggliding.org. Since Michael has brought the claim and is a member of hanggliding.org, I am requesting those posts from him as if by subpoena. We have no way to force him to do so, but his failing to provide the reasonably requested evidence should be weighed heavily in evaluating his complaint.

Michael has claimed:

There was not a neuron or synaptic firing in my brain that even considered Jack banning me from hanggliding.org if I spoke up for Joe Faust.

Given Jack's well known proclivity for banning people, and given the vast number of neurons and synapses in the human brain, Michael's statement cannot possibly be true. I believe the evidence I've requested will support my position. Furthermore, it's a well established fact in the field of psychology that people acting under fear and duress are often unaware of their true motivations. People do not like to believe that they are under the control of others and will often find other justifications for why they obeyed under threat rather than admit that the threat itself was a factor. Michael's conjecture that fear of being banned played absolutely no role in his silence is simply not credible - even if he really believes it to be true.

[Free]

Since Michael has brought the claim and is a member of hanggliding.org, I am requesting those posts from him as if by subpoena. We have no way to force him to do so, but his failing to provide the reasonably requested evidence should be weighed heavily in evaluating his complaint.

Seize your power, Hawks! You do have subpoena power in the Court of Public Opinion!
Michael thought he was opening a can of whoop a** and all he got was a can of worms.
I'm sorry I ever doubted your tactics, Bob.
This was never a myopic exercise of futility. You did a complex triple bank shot and Michael was the eight ball in the side pocket!
You should have listened to me Michael. Believe me when I tell you now that you have lost the game.
To begin with, it was a mistake to try and play in this league.
Defending the weasel Jack Axaopolous... what were you thinking?

And Michael gives the correct answer on that question:

There was not a neuron or synaptic firing in my brain that even considered Jack banning me from hanggliding.org if I spoke up for Joe Faust.

Not a neuron firing...

[Bill Cummings]

Michael,
I have to agree with you on the particular point that you raised of whether Joe's banning was fair or not has anything to do with your claim. Your claim can stand alone without knowing the answer to the fairness question.
I'm trying to maintain the focus on your Cease and Desist Request but both you and Bob have flood texted
this topic to the point that there are too many ingredients in the soup to properly name it.
While Bob has made statements about your motives that would necessitate him knowing the workings of your mind you have allowed him to draw you into making the same mistake.
Michael,

This is a complete fabrication of the truth by Bob. So, after three months Bob is still telling me what I believe and don’t believe. Sorry Bob, I can tell the world with my own lips and writings what I believe. I don’t need Bullsh-t Bob to promote a Lying Fraud about me.

(emphasis mine. BC)
It would seem that you, Michael, claim to know the workings of Bob's mind.
Without a doubt the Hawks should update the registration agreement.
Slander does not technically (words orally) fit the agreement. ( Edit: claimed violation.)
Of course your complaint is well taken.
If it had been me that said you were afraid for fear of being banned I would personally have
apologized for my poor choice of words.
But as a Trial Board Member (advisory board) the only place I know of compelled speech
would be in the State of New York and Canada's Provincial Bill C16. (Preferred Pronoun.)
As a TBM I can't compel anyone to apologize.

[magentabluesky]

Without a doubt the Hawks should update the registration agreement.
Slander does not technically (words orally) fit the agreement. ( Edit: claimed violation.)
Of course your complaint is well taken.

You are quite right Bill.

Slander and Libel Definition
What is Slander? What is Libel? Libel and slander are both types of defamation. Libel is an untrue defamatory statement that is made in writing. Slander is an untrue defamatory statement that is spoken orally. The difference between defamation and slander is that a defamatory statement can be made in any medium. It could be in a blog comment or spoken in a speech or said on television. Libelous acts only occur when a statement is made in writing (digital statements count as writing) and slanderous statements are only made orally.
Link

Registration Agreement:
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated or any other material that may violate any laws be it of your country, the country where “US Hawks Hang Gliding Association” is hosted or International Law. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned, with notification of your Internet Service Provider if deemed required by us.

So are you saying it is acceptable to defame on the US Hawks because it is written and not oral slander?

You may think about changing your Registration Agreement by replacing slanderous with Libel and/or defamation.

I was just quoting the US Hawks rules.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Michael,

After all this time, you still don't get it?   Let me try again ...

You're at Jack's house with a dozen friends having beer and hamburgers. Everyone talks about whatever they want, and so Joe talks about USHGRS. Jack thinks USHGRS is a threat to his monopoly, so he throws Joe out the door.

By every law on the books, Jack has every right to do that even though Jack didn't state that rule on the invitations he sent out.

OK?   Do we agree so far?

The only question I have, is what do YOU do Michael?

Do you tell Jack that if Joe's not welcome, then you're leaving?
Or do you complain a bit and then carry on as if nothing happened?

I say the first choice is honorable and makes the world a better place.
I say the second choice is shameful and makes the world a worse place.

That's the whole issue in a nutshell.

With regard to slander or libel, the defense that the statements are true (or not provably false) works whether they were spoken or written.

Michael, I've offered before that I could add a moderator's note that the statements are opinions if that's your complaint. I think that's implicit, but I can make it explicit if that's your complaint. You have not responded to that offer as far as I know. Instead, you've made statements that make mine pale by comparison. It's hard to take your complaints seriously when you make statements like "Bob is evil" and "Totalitarian Bob is having a tizzy doing the dead bug on the floor in a Temper Tantrum overload".

Also, as I've asked a number of times, please post the statements you made defending Joe on hanggliding.org and the responses by Jack. You keep referring to them, and yet they're unavailable to many of us here. Please post them so we can evaluate your complaint with all the facts at hand. Thanks.

[magentabluesky]

No, Bob we do not agree so far because your fantasy world is not what happened.

First, when Jack sent out the invitations, Jack clearly spelled out the rules and Joe reposted the then rules on US Hawks and commented on Jack’s rules.

Second Joe and Jack were not the only ones in the conversation. I was in the conversation and vigorously supported Joe and Joe’s USHGRS. Others were involved in the conversation too.

Just to clear up a point I was not having a beer and hamburgers. The last beer I had was a Newcastle Brown on a date with a Female Colonel Air Force Reserve who also had a PhD about eight years ago. She was impressive. No, I will not tell you what she did in the Air Force Reserve. That was impressive too.

While the USHGRS conversation was going on, Steve Seibel and Mike (Wonder Boy) reenergized the conversation on “Class-E-To-Surface” airspace (Oct 3, 2019). Both Steve and Mike are highly respected in the hang gliding community and the subject of conversation on “Class-E-To-Surface” airspace has safety and legal implications to the hang gliding community. So I freely chose to engage in the conversation for the purpose of finding some clarity to the issues being discussed. My personal opinion is the FAA has messed up the rules and interpretation of the “Class-E-To-Surface” airspace. I even went so far as to call a past co-pilot of mine who had gone on to be a Vice President of a Regional Airline in the Pacific Northwest and is now currently a FAA Inspector in Portland to get his view on the subject of the “Class-E-To-Surface” airspace.

I make the choice to post on the subjects I feel are worthy of comment, not what Bob Kuczewski thinks are worthy or not worthy.

In both the “Class-E-To-Surface” airspace discussion and in the Free Speech discussion, I have not stuck my head in the sand but have researched the subjects as to what the accepted customs, laws, and court rulings are in the matters. Yes, it has been a learning process, and yes my general initial thoughts were correct, the owner is the authority and has the right. If you want to chose to keep your head in the sand; that is your choice.

I say what is dishonorable is limiting free speech with the threat of retaliation (shame) when someone is exercising their free speech. I feel no shame, I followed an honorable path.

A far as the posts I made in support of Joe and Joe’s USHGRS, they were viewable on Hang Gliding dot Org in early December when I went back and reread them when Bob was accusing me of not supporting Joe. When I reread my posts I was impressed at how supportive I was of Joe and Joe’s USHGRS. Jack has deleted (edited) many if not all of those posts. That is his right and is his rule. Jack has clearly stated his right to delete or edit any content on his website in his posted rules. I do not go through life documenting every occurrence to prove the facts to Totalitarian Bob.

Bob, feel free to harvest all the posts on all the Hang Gliding Forums. All the while Bob shames for posting on Hang Gliding dot Org, but Bob is visiting Hang Gliding dot Org running up Jack viewership numbers making money for Jack. Bob should be feeling the shame and putting his name on his own Wall of Shame.

I clearly stated in the Cease and Desist Request that Bob is entitled to his opinion, but the Feb 06, 2019 post by Bob clearly is being representative as being the “truth” and not Bob’s opinion. Furthermore in the context of the first two sentences, Bob is representing that Frank, Mike, and Red were aware of the “truth” that Jack was unjustly treating and silencing Joe. Bob is representing to the world that all three believe that Joe was being unjustly treated and silenced. I can only speak for myself and can say that is a very simplistic view of the circumstances which I would not agree with and not representative of the truth of my beliefs. Bob is therefore propagating a lie of what I believe in the matter.

The whole point of the matter is not what Bob’s opinion is. The point is Bob Kuczewski is representing to the world that I believe in facts and events that are just not true. The biggest lie being, Jack threatened me with banishment. It just did not happen, a flat out Bob Kuczewski lie. Bob apologize to Jack.

So, here I am “defending” myself against the lying Bullsh-t Bob promoting a “Lying Fraud”. Yes, Bob is the Evil One limiting people’s free speech and limiting where they can post on Hang Gliding forums. Yes, Totalitarian Bob is having a tizzy doing the dead bug on the floor in a Temper Tantrum overload.

Bob, are you putting Joe Faust on Bob’s Wall of Shame for soliciting posts on Hang Gliding dot Org?

Soliciting is against the law.

Head Lines: BobK Pleads Not Guilty to Solicitation (Real Google Search)