Sad news for tandem

JP: That's right Robin, let's just sweep the ugliness right back under the rug, like we've been doing for too many years.


RH: There you go again, JP, getting your panties all in a knot again...



I said nothing in any way shape or form to suggest that "we" sweep anything under a rug. I said that this forum is unequivocally not the place to have that discussion.


JP: Some things need to change in a big way or ya'll are gonna fuck up my life, living, and love.


RH: And among the most important things that need to change is this psychotic notion that spilling our guts on a public forum that will forever be part of the cloud is somehow an intelligent way to protect sport parachuting.


JP: Everything being brought up in this thread is already public knowledge, most of it from the deposition in THIS suit!


RH: As i said in response to Jan...

there is a plethora of opinions and "insights" offered in this thread that are in fact NOT part of the discovery.

d5533
base44
court-certified expert witness

Quote

1) what may indeed be already-deposed discovery in this case is NOT known to the legions of lawyers to whom you are so ignorantly providing it; and

2) many of the opinions and "insights" offered in this thread are in fact NOT part of this discovery.

"legions of lawyers"?
Great, if there is ever another lawyer that needs info about this case, tandem is seriously fucked.

Every opinion or insight that has been mentioned on this thread has been brought up in the depos.
Specifically, the rumor that Roberts was instructed by someone to sling the lower back lateral under the butt for plump women has been denied all across the board.
I've read all the depos, have you?

.

Quote

America has a serious problem if Strong goes out of business over this trial.

SE is NOT going out of business.
It filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
That means that a company's debt structure is rearranged so that creditors can be paid.
The company has income and stays in business.

.

Quote

Quote

1) what may indeed be already-deposed discovery in this case is NOT known to the legions of lawyers to whom you are so ignorantly providing it; and

2) many of the opinions and "insights" offered in this thread are in fact NOT part of this discovery.

"legions of lawyers"?
Great, if there is ever another lawyer that needs info about this case, tandem is seriously fucked.

Every opinion or insight that has been mentioned on this thread has been brought up in the depos.
Specifically, the rumor that Roberts was instructed by someone to sling the lower back lateral under the butt for plump women has been denied all across the board.
I've read all the depos, have you?

.

There you go again engaging in idiot dialectic, Jan.

The "every opinion and insight" to which you refer is a priori not the opinion and/or "insight" to which I refer, which I expressly defined as that which does not appear in the depositions.

Neither were my comments directed at lawyers who may be interested in _this_ case only; that is a stipulation you manufactured out of the thin air between your ears. The legions to which I refer are those hundreds of thousands of them who seek any "reasonable cause" upon which to base a lawsuit against a vulnerable target - and the idiot dialectic on this thread makes parachuting-related businesses more vulnerable.

Finally, the conclusion you draw based upon the above idiot dialectic is consistent with said dialectic and non sequitur to boot.

So I say again: enough with the idiot dialectic. Please get your head out of your lower back lateral and...

Wow, Robin, I have been severely misinformed.
I did not know that only Robin Heid's approval of someone's opining was a basis for a post.
I must have missed that in the rules section.

.

Relax Robin,

Because lawyers have already been told that they are welcome to quote anything I say on dz.com ... PROVIDED they pay me $10,000 every time they quote me in court.

Hah!
Hah!

And when the first payment comes in, I plan to take a bunch of skydiving buddies out for steak and lobster.
Robin, I count you as a buddy.
Jan, I count you as a buddy.

My professional credentials include inspecting parachutes - that were involved in accidents - for Dan Poynter and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Quote

Wow, Robin, I have been severely misinformed.
I did not know that only Robin Heid's approval of someone's opining was a basis for a post.
I must have missed that in the rules section.

.

well, now you know.



d5533
base44
court-certified expert witness

Quote

I said nothing in any way shape or form to suggest that "we" sweep anything under a rug. I said that this forum is unequivocally not the place to have that discussion.

BULLSHIT! - where exactly should we be having this discussion? Maybe info like this should be posted VERY publicly. It might actually inspire the plaintiff or the lawyers to go after the right people.

And I do not remember any case where a lawyer subpoena'd someone over a post in DZ.com.

---------
I got a lot of private emails in support of my comments, but I always have been one to 'speak my mind'. While it sometimes gets me into trouble, my experience in life is that it keeps me out of more trouble than it gets me into.

Not sure why more people are not speaking 'their mind', but sort of understand with all the USPA politics.

But we (USPA and skydiving) are simply hanging ourselves in the environment of 'not speaking up' as well. Mike Gruwell does the same shit, loses his ratings, whines, and gets his ratings back again. WTF?

A lot of that seemed to be hush hush or was at the time. I am going to start showing up at meetings and publicly fucking speaking my mind if we do not change the culture somewhat. we cut secret deals with lawsuits, we suspend ratings for minor infractions, yet let people get away with criminally negligent homicide (or at least manslaughter)

Yes we (USPA and skydiving) need members and yes we cannot "eat our young", but we also need to recognize when someone , some DZO, or some operation is a liability and do something about it.

No one wants to be part of an organization that will hang you on your first mistake or infraction. I have made my share of those mistakes. But those are isolated, not cultural problems within the structure of a tandem operation.

But some of us do not want to be part of an organization that will not stand up against those that fuck it up for all of us.

USPA by-laws allow a Board Member to be removed. Sheri/Tim Butcher should be removed via that process, and have his/her ratings removed as a complicit part of the negligence that happened at their dropzone.

USPA would actually gain a lot of respect from people like me if that were to happen. But Sheri & Tim have too many friends, I expect. Tough to get the message across to the voting members, when someone gets elected typically with less than 100 votes.

And we all make mistakes, but this is not a malfunction gone bad, or an AAD fire, or an aircraft near-miss. This is a dead woman. If they snugged that lumbar strap just 6 inches, she probably would be alive. Fucking ridiculous

IMO

Quote

Quote

I said nothing in any way shape or form to suggest that "we" sweep anything under a rug. I said that this forum is unequivocally not the place to have that discussion.

BULLSHIT! - where exactly should we be having this discussion? Maybe info like this should be posted VERY publicly. It might actually inspire the plaintiff or the lawyers to go after the right people.

IMO

The problem with your "thinking" here is that to a lawyer the definition of "the right people" is anyone vulnerable enough to attack... which is in significant part calculated by how much time the lawyer can spend on the case versus how much the target has to defend against the case against the projected return.

Kinda reminds me of those who "think" that tighter restrictions on firearms will "keep guns out of the wrong hands" when in fact it serves only to make it harder on "the right people..."

So please get a clue about how the real legal world works before you break wind through your mouth again.

Which brings me to "where exactly we should be having this discussion..."

We have the discussion privately, or in a secured forum, or by phone, or in any of a dozen different ways that are invitational in nature instead of a "hey, anybody who wants to can be on the load."

The problem with the aforementioned venues is that they require forethought, planning and a sober-minded approach to the issue, which is anathema to keyboard terminators who blast off their missives without reflection, due diligence or any other considerations beyond venting and/or showing off how smart they think they are.

Cases in point from your reply to me:

1) The first word of your response to me, and the manner in which you wrote it; and

2) your use of the same idiot dialectic technique employed by Jan; making up a stipulation from the thin air between your ears. I said nothing in any way shape or form to suggest that a subpoena for a keyboard terminator was the only - or even principal - outcome of the recklessly brain-dead way information and/or "insight" is offered on this thread.

So I ask again...

Quote

So please get a clue about how the real legal world works before you break wind through your mouth again.

And this approach accomplishes so much more. Maybe you should take your own advise till you can speak with respect.

Quote

Relax Robin,

Because lawyers have already been told that they are welcome to quote anything I say on dz.com ... PROVIDED they pay me $10,000 every time they quote me in court.

Hah!
Hah!

I'm perfectly relaxed, Rob; eating idiot dialecticists for breakfast does that for me.

And now, my friend, you've gone and engaged in it with _your_ stipulation, too.

I never in any way shape or form said anything about expert testimony or otherwise limited the multiple ways in which lawyers might use the the information and "insight" lawyers in this thread (and others) to shape, direct, amplify and otherwise make more legally lethal their assaults on a parachuting-related business.

The more you know earlier about your opponent, the better a plan you can make to beat him. This is a basic rule of conflict/competition/warfare and all the keyboard terminators who actually _do_ care about protecting and preserving sport parachuting need to learn it. I strongly suggest that said keyboard terminators do that by resting their fingers for a while and reading Sun-Tzu's Art of War (I prefer the Samuel B. Griffith translation).

Quote

Quote

So please get a clue about how the real legal world works before you break wind through your mouth again.

And this approach accomplishes so much more. Maybe you should take your own advise till you can speak with respect.

Idiot dialectic category: Non sequitur.

I strongly suggest that said keyboard terminators do that by resting their fingers for a while and reading Sun-Tzu's Art of War (I prefer the Samuel B. Griffith translation).

Quote

That genie's been out of the bottle for way too many years....
There's also way too many egos in this sport that KNOW that the rules are written for all those other fools, not for them, and maybe (not certainly) this discussion might make some of them realize their potential personal liability (even if they have little concern over the safety of their passenger) for deviating from USPA or manufacturers recommendation i.e.;
current discussion on whether to follow manufacturer's recommendations on lower attachments,
current discussion on back-loop exits,
ongoing discussions on hook landings,
recent videos of tandem CRW,
I've seen nothing here that in any way suggests that Strong is at fault, and I have no sympathy for any TI who negligently kills or injures a tandem passenger.
Who exactly are we at war with, and who is part of "we"?

This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

• Quote

And I do not remember any case where a lawyer subpoenaed someone over a post in DZ.com.

Well...


I didn't receive subpoena a but was 'threatened' with one so to speak.
A couple years ago there was a comment I made in the incidents forum that sparked interest from some mouth piece for a plaintiff. It was a liability suit regarding a demonstration jump with injury.

The comment wasn't derogatory in nature, but in retrospect could have been interpreted in various ways. This guy wanted to interpret in a way beneficial to his client.

The eye opener is... I'm not an easy guy to find. (by design)

I finally surfaced after repeated harassing calls & visits to my 80 year old mother (1500 miles away) by a P.I.
That idiot had been goose chasing for a couple months trying to locate & interview me.

After an interesting 25 minute conversation with this attorney the issue concerning my opinion and possible involvement as a 'professional witness' was put to rest, but it definitely gave me pause to reconsider what & how I say things in a public forum.

~That being said.

I understand the point you're making TK, and I agree the machine isn't running right in many ways.

...I don't know what the answer is on how to fix things, but I have concerns when we lean too quickly toward publicly throwin' a 'family member' under the bus.

You & I have been around for a while, we've seen Skydiving leave the realm of 'Hobby & Sport' and move into becoming not much more than profitable busine$$ in many instances.

As such, we all need to become acutely aware that our words and actions can & will be scrutinized during those circumstances in which fault and money may play a role in some way because of an unfortunate outcome of a citizen's participation.

'Hush things up' isn't what I'm saying, thoughtful consideration within the open discussions, while understanding the current 'business aspect' now being the nature of the beast ~ IS.

And BTW TK~ I'm not referring negatively to your post(s) by any means, just replying to the subpoena comment...

" ... The problem with your "thinking" here is that to a lawyer the definition of "the right people" is anyone vulnerable enough to attack... which is in significant part calculated by how much time the lawyer can spend on the case versus how much the target has to defend against the case against the projected return. ..."

.........................................................................

Sounds like your definition of a lawyer matches my definition of a bully.

Or maybe I am just seeing lawyers through my own excrement-smeared glasses after painful experiences in divorce court.

This sort of statement only confirms my suspicion that the difference between a lawyer and a bully is too small to measure with an electron microscope!

" ... But we ... are simply hanging ourselves in the environment of 'not speaking up' as well. Mike Gruwell does the same shit, loses his ratings, whines, and gets his ratings back again. WTF? ..."

.....................................................................

When did Mike Gruwell get his ratings back?

My last inquiry - on this subject - was back in February 2009, at the PIA Symposium when I chatted with a rep from Strong Enterprises.
The rep thought that Mike Gruwell had made an honest mistake, but was surprised at how harsh MG was on himself after the accident. MG allowed his tandem rating to lapse.
Meanwhile, the same rep from Strong Ent. was baffled by the callous handling of the Ohio accident.