"Instructor" arrested...was Lodi Tandem Fatality

More drama from the Lodi tandem course fiasco many years ago. Will be curious how this ends.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/pr/san-joaquin-county-skydiver-arrested-running-unauthorized-tandem-instructor-courses?fbclid=IwAR1J9K-54iAs7VHd8Pt3j4s50-FInjljkV9xBsKvgVhrnoQgwGF5Ho2DNWA

Apparently Bill Dause doesn't think the guy is guilty....

Two artciles, video in the bottom one

--

ACAMPO, Calif. (KTXL) — The owner of the Skydive Lodi Parachute Center spoke out Wednesday after an instructor was accused of training and certifying people in tandem jumping while he was unauthorized to do so. 

Owner Bill Dause spoke for about 30 minutes, during which he downplayed the U.S. attorney‘s case against Robert Allen Pooley.  

Pooley is accused of forging signatures for tandem jump certificates. 

“Well, it’s a total surprise,” Dause said. “No … he doesn’t forge documents. That’s wrong.” 

Video from August 2016 showed the moments before 18-year-old Tyler Turner fell to his death, along with his unlicensed tandem jump instructor. 

Pooley, who is accused of fraudulently training Turner’s instructor, has pleaded not guilty to six counts of aggravated identity theft and wire fraud. 

Dause told reporters Pooley is not an employee but an independent contractor who uses the facility to teach tandem jumping courses. 

Dause has allowed Pooley to teach at the facility for the past 10 years. 

“He doesn’t work for me,” Dause said. “He is an independent individual that operates on the Lodi Airport. He doesn’t work here; he jumps here.” 

He claimed the two are friends and their business relationship involves Dause selling Pooley tickets to fly in a plane in order to go skydiving. 

There have been at least 20 recorded fatalities at the Skydive Lodi Parachute Center since it opened in 1981, but Dause has said the danger is just part of the sport. 

“I have known literally hundreds of skydivers that are dead now,” Dause claimed. 

However, there has been at least one federal raid at the center over the past four years. 

Dause blamed the raid on Turner’s mother. 

“She has gone through everything to make life tough on me. I don’t blame her; she certainly has a right to do that,” Dause said. 

The Turner family recently won a $40 million lawsuit against Dause and the drop zone, but Dause said he does not have the money. 

“Well, if I find $40 million, I’ll be glad to give it to them,” Dause said. 

Despite his business suffering, Dause says now that Pooley has been released from custody, he’ll still be allowed to jump and teach at his facility. 

FOX40 asked, “You can stop him from jumping here, right?” 

“Yes, and I could ask you to leave also, but I didn’t,” Dause said. 

Pooley is expected back at the federal courthouse on Aug. 23. 

Dause does not face any charges, and the plane at the Lodi Airport still has Federal Aviation Administration certification to fly. 

https://fox40.com/news/local-news/skydive-lodi-owner-says-instructor-facing-federal-charges-will-still-be-allowed-to-jump-at-his-facility/

--

Second piece with video:

https://www.abc10.com/video/syndication/ott/owner-of-skydiving-center-near-lodi-defends-himself-against-allegations/103-7c75778e-0fda-4216-b2b0-27e0e4b99107

It will be interesting to see how this independent contractorship holds up.

1 hour ago, nwt said:

It will be interesting to see how this independent contractorship holds up.

It would not appear to be an issue in case against Pooley. And Dause is not charged with anything. My guess is that several DZOs are praying that it stays as a non issue. Independent contactor relationships are widespread in in industry.

A couple questions in my mind, and I've heard conflicting information...

The Examiner in question, had his rating simply lapsed, or had it been suspended/revoked for cause? If the latter, what was the cause? And the Examiner who'se signature he used, did he know, and agree to it?

1 hour ago, nwt said:

It will be interesting to see how this independent contractorship holds up

That's how the industry has always operated, with instructors being 1099 independent contractors. There's always been talk over whether that is appropriate and whether it should change, but I think the reality is that the industry just isn't big enough to attract the attention of the authorities who would change it. I've heard that some dz's might be W-2-ing their instructors as employees, but I'm not sure if that's true (yet).

3 minutes ago, billvon said:

Agreed.  But looks like this guy attracted exactly that sort of attention.

It's not surprising. A promising 18 year old man was killed by a poorly trained TI. Have you never heard of "Mothers Against Dangerous Divers" (MADD)?

Has UPT or USPA publically said why they revoked Pooley's Tandem Examiner ratings?

On 6/23/2021 at 3:34 PM, jacketsdb23 said:

More drama from the Lodi tandem course fiasco many years ago. Will be curious how this ends.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/pr/san-joaquin-county-skydiver-arrested-running-unauthorized-tandem-instructor-courses?fbclid=IwAR1J9K-54iAs7VHd8Pt3j4s50-FInjljkV9xBsKvgVhrnoQgwGF5Ho2DNWA

Thanks for this link. There is a statement from that press release that needs to be clarified a bit:

If convicted, Pooley faces a maximum statutory penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for each count of wire fraud, and a mandatory two year sentence on each count of aggravated identity theft. Any sentence, however, would be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables.

This says that the court has discretion on the sentencing. That is only true on the wire fraud charge. On the surface, the wire fraud charge sounds more serious since the maximum penalty is 20 years. In practice, however, the federal sentencing guidelines will almost surely lead to a sentence far, far lower than 20 years. For the wire fraud charge, 20 years probably doesn't really mean 20 years or anything close.

However the 2 years for aggravated identity theft really does mean 2 years. If convicted, his sentence on that count will be 2 years, neither more nor less. There is exactly zero discretion when it comes to the federal sentencing guidelines for aggravated identity theft. The 2 years for aggravated identity theft could well end up being longer than the 20 years for wire fraud because there is no discretion.

The aggravated identity theft charge is only used in conjunction with other serious felonies, and it is a tool used by federal prosecutors to reduce the discretion of judges, probation officers, and the defense to push for a shorter sentence. If convicted, he will be serving 2 years plus whatever he gets on the other charge.

By tacking on the aggravated identity theft charges, the prosecutors are sending a strong signal that they want significant prison time rather than some more lenient alternative sentence.

i didn't read the article as i don't have an interest, but the paragraph you have in bold does say exactly what you reworded below.  the court has discretion with sentencing AFTER consideration of the sentencing guidelines.  depending on how good the lawyer arguing the case is, or how much money the plaintiff has, he may well plea down the charges with mandatory sentencing guidelines or be found not guilty of them.

14 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

i didn't read the article as i don't have an interest, but the paragraph you have in bold does say exactly what you reworded below.  the court has discretion with sentencing AFTER consideration of the sentencing guidelines.  depending on how good the lawyer arguing the case is, or how much money the plaintiff has, he may well plea down the charges with mandatory sentencing guidelines or be found not guilty of them.

Yes it is all in the stuff in bold, but the paragraph in bold refers to both "discretionary" and "mandatory" sentences. I'm trying to emphasize that in the end his sentence will be more mandatory than discretionary.

Yes, if his lawyer is good enough to get the aggravated identity theft charges dropped entirely, he can get a lower sentence. My point is that by tacking on such charges, the prosecutors are sending a strong signal that they aren't open to such a deal. Should he elect to go to trial, his odds are not good, as federal prosecutors have a 95%+ conviction rate.

Unless his attorney believes he has an unusually good case at trial, they will likely focus on getting as good a plea bargain as possible. By tacking on the aggravated identity theft charges, the prosecutors have already drawn their line in the sand as to how they expect said plea bargaining to go, and it is unlikely (not impossible) that line will be crossed.

He'll get some short, plea bargained, sentence on the wire fraud and two years, served consecutively, on the aggravated identity theft.