Should a USPA member who is suing to shutdown a USPA Group Member Drop Zone be allowed to jump at any USPA Group Member Drop Zone?

Quote

Quote

Note also in that document it talks about dues being levied for maintenance of the property - they're not contributing to the airport maintenance, even though they use the airport. They're not keeping up their end of the bargain.

1) This seems like a pretty blatant violation of the agreement. Is anything happening to pursue them to own up to paying maintenance fees?

2) Why are they continuing to be allowed to use it if they are not paying?

3) What is the fundamental reason for Bill Green's being such a jerk? (There must be more to the story than him just suddenly becoming such an asshole).

1) Nothing that I know of. About 15 years ago, when the drop zone moved in to the airport, a meeting was called with all the homeowners, to try and get them to contribute their monthly maintenance dues again. A few did, for a while, then that fizzled out again. But there was still a cooperative atmosphere. When the runway lights needed new cabling, the DZ and the homeowners worked together to purchase and install the new cabling. Today, there are probably many who would still cooperate for the common good, but the gang of eight are the rotten apples spoiling the whole barrel.

2) Because it's in the contract that the land owner has to allow them to use the airport. To not do so, would be a violation of the contract. There was a conflict many years ago between one homeowner and the DZO at that time. The DZO built a fence across the homeowner's taxiway to deny him access to the runway. The homeowner quickly got a judge to order the fence to be taken down. So the neighborhood deed restrictions don't really allow you to shut them off.

I suppose you could sue the homeowners for back maintenance fees, but that's going to be expensive as heck. It's probably cheaper to just let them use it free. But that doesn't make it right. Men of honor would not use someone else's property for free, when they are contractually obligated to pay a fee.

3) Don't know. He always seemed like a nice guy, to me. I'm surprised at his current behavior, and saddened that I can no longer call him a friend, and jump with him.

Supposedly the gang of eight want to take over the airport ownership from the drop zone, then re-impose the maintenance fees on all their neighbors, so that they can then be king and spend other people's money on the airport as they see fit.

DZ drama update.

This week, Skydive Houston posted a series of signs along the runway where homeowners enter with their aircraft from their hangers, to warn them of new rules required by the judge in the case. A photo of one of the signs is posted below.

The holes were dug one day in preparation for installing the signs. Mysteriously, overnight, the holes filled themselves in!

The next day, the holes were re-dug, and posts sunk in concrete in the holes, with signs mounted on the posts.

Mysteriously, overnight, at least one of the signs was pulled up out of the still-wet concrete and crawled it's way into a ditch!

I wonder how these things could have happened? Busy little moles? A freak micro tornado? Or perhaps, just maybe, an angry homeowner who doesn't like skydivers?

I vote for the last one. That's destruction of property and/or vandalism, to go on top of the previous trespassing charges.

Grow up, you guys. You started this. Now live with the rules that the judge created in response to your lawsuit. They are there because of you.

He is a member and should be allowed to jump unless he has breached USPA policies that would prevent him from jumping.

We have a "bringing the sport into direpute" clause in our regulations that could be used in extreme circumstances to remove a member. This is hard to enact and usually leads to a court case, costs, and eventually rival organisations being set up. It seems that it's easier to st up non USPA organisations in the USA than in other countries????

On a personal level, which is where the bulk of this argument lies IMHO, this person is a greedy, manipulative, opportunisti who I would not want to either jump or associate with. Karma will have it's way.

There are many options:
1 - if everyone at the other drop zone does not like him, don't jump with him. As much fun as a solo or hop and pop is, they do get lonely and boring after a while. He would give up eventually??
2 - report any / every breach he makes to the USPA, the IRS, immigration, FAA, local council, police, whatever?? Reality dictates that it is very hard for any person to follow every single rule in the book. However, this takes lots of negative energy.
3 - Bring back the biff - or as the old timers in BASE would say, "tar and feather" him. But that could get you into trouble.
4 - he is in a sponsored team is he not?? I am sure his sponsors would have some sort of behavioural expectations from him. They would also like their product or service represented in a positive light. I mean, imagine if someone was sponsored by a DZ or gear manufacturer and they were trying to shutdown market share and potential customers. As a sponsor I would not be happy about that..
5 - Tell some local "merchandisers" that he breached their supply chains and undermined customer relationships!!
6 - Do the aircraft owners all follow FAA rules religiously????

Anyway, lots of time and energy wasted here. It would be simpler just to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Quote

The only difference is Mcnasty wasn't a jumper just a home owner on the DZ who's wife left his sorry ass for a skydiver.

Classic!!

Looks like they both got f$^$&.

Update.

The homeowners didn't get to shut down the drop zone during the previous injunction hearing. So, would they just wait until the full trial in October to try again? Of course not! They've been sneaking around taking videos, and they were back in court today, alleging that the drop zone has committed numerous violations of the judges orders, and has requested that they each of the parties be fined $500 per violation, and JAILED. Yes, that's right, they asked the judge to incarcerate the drop zone owner, the land owner, and the pilot.

Here is a copy of the Motion for Contempt that the homeowners filed, and which was heard today:

http://picasaweb.google.com/JohnRich3rd/Contempt?authkey=Gv1sRgCKy4zsT6ofb8_gE

It consists of 9 pages.
Click the first page, then click on "full screen" at top-left to read the pages.
Click the arrows to scroll through the pages.
If that's not large enough print for you, start over again and click the magnifying glass at top-right.
Then click and drag to scroll through the image.

The names of other defendants in the lawsuit have been removed. They are the land owners from whom the DZ leases the premises, and the jump pilot. I'm going to protect their privacy here.

The list of allegations gets repetitive. If you get bored reading it, at least be sure to skip to page 8, where the request is made under "Relief Sought" to put the parties in jail.

In addition, they requested that skydivers no longer be allowed to land anywhere on the airport property (which the drop zone owns!).

The end result today was that there was insufficient time to complete the hearing, and the judge took no action. He will schedule another court date to complete the testimony.

I'll report more tomorrow, on the happenings in court today.

its sad seeing skydivers not supporting skydiving. All the photo taking and video....typical hypocritical mudslinging.
some people blinded by their own petty agenda dont care who they hurt or how they do it. Airport access is the future of this sport.(even though this is a odd case of private property) Any skydiver that tries to shut down a safe DZ by using these tactics should lose all respect in the community. If its a matter of rival DZ's then shut them down by finding creative ways to out compete them. Thats the only respectable way for a skydiver to shut down a DZ.

My best wishes go out to the DZ that is fighting this. This is a sad state of affairs. This guy has no idea or just doesnt care how this might affect other DZ's in the future.

I say we TP his house



But seriously, that's very dissapointing to read about... Best of luck to you guys. Fight the good fight.

Here's one of the highlights of the drop zone's testimony in court.

The homeowners allege in their "Motion for Contempt", among other things, that on July 3rd, the drop zone's C-182 jump plane dropped jumpers who landed on the runways. This is allegation #8 in the document previously referenced in post #80.

There's only one problem with that charge: The C-182 had been loaned out to Skydive Temple for the entire July 4th weekend. The plane wasn't even there that day! It dropped no jumpers at Skydive Houston. This was proven in court by the aircraft flight log.

What was even funnier is this. The plaintiff's have subpoenaed those log books in their evidence fishing, but the defense has refused to turn them over, citing a legal exemption that protects them. But when these very same log books were now going to prove them to be liars, the defense attorney stood up and objected to it being entered into evidence! Ha! Either they want it, or they don't. Make up their mind! The judge overruled the defense objection, and copies of the log book pages were accepted as evidence.

These homeowners are just making stuff up, swearing to it as true in a court of law, and using their lies to try and get three good people thrown in jail.

And the irony of all this is that they are suing the drop zone for contempt, when in fact, it is THEIR actions which are contemptuous. If anyone should be thrown in jail, it is those who are lying to the court to further their agenda.

Surely this is now bordering on perjury?

Isn't there a clause where the judge can throw the case out because the plaintiffs are arseholes? and if there isn't, there should be!

Quote

Isn't there a clause where the judge can throw the case out because the plaintiffs are arseholes?

Nah - most judges are arseholes. Professional courtesy.

Quote

Surely this is now bordering on perjury?

They have a previous history in this regard. Here's another story for you, of the dirty tricks these guys play, because they have no valid case.

Skydive Houston is a member of the Better Business Bureau. Their BBB information can be seen here:
http://www.bbb.org/houston/business-reviews/not-elsewhere-classified/skydive-houston-in-waller-tx-35001568/

Skydive Houston was recently the proud recipient of a Better Business Bureau award, which can be seen here:
http://houston.bbb.org/bbb-awards-for-excellence/

Well, guess what? Along comes someone named "Gregory Paul" with a PO Box address in Waller, Texas, the same city where the drop zone exists, who files a complaint with the BBB against Skydive Houston, alleging all kinds of nasty business practices. The BBB procedure for this was to suspend the "A" rating of the business while they investigated the veracity of the allegations. The BBB investigation eventually determined the complaints to be groundless, and reinstated Skydive Houston's excellent rating.

Now comes the interesting "coincidence". One of the principal instigators of the lawsuit against Skydive Houston is a man named Paul Gregory Kates, who has a PO Box address in Waller, Texas. You can see his name as a plaintiff on the lawsuit documents which have been previously referenced in this thread (as in message #80).

Gee, could this possibly be the same guy? Could the "Paul Gregory Kates" in the lawsuit also be the "Gregory Paul" of the BBB complaint? The very same Paul Gregory Kates who owns a home on the airport, and is a pilot that uses the airport? Could Kates be the one who filed a false BBB complaint to try and hurt Skydive Houston's business and reputation, in order to further his own goals of shutting down the drop zone, so he can take over the land?

I'm sure the name similarity is just an amazing coincidence! No, they don't lie. Not at all.

Paul Gregory Kates public information:
Airman certificate: https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/Detail.aspx?uniqid=A3892813&certNum=1
Aircraft 1: http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/nnumsql.asp?NNumbertxt=60132
Aircraft 2: http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/nnumsql.asp?NNumbertxt=234PK
Property tax records: http://www.txcountydata.com/searchResults.asp?OwnerLastName=kates&OwnerFirstName=paul&Type=Partial&Submit=Submit&County=237&f=1
Tax exempt flying club: http://www.taxexemptworld.com/organization.asp?tn=1130639

Hi JR

I don't remember how long this "misunderstanding" has been going on at your DZ but lieing to the BBB is kid stuff.

The lawyers OTOH are real $$$$. This crap can drag on for as long as people are willing to pay their lawyers.

The end result will be even the winner will end up being a loser. The only real winners are the lawyers,

To bad level heads can't prevail and settle this crap thru mediation.

I just hope things don't get physical and or felony criminal..

I'm sure your aware that Mcnasty and their Lawyer may be monitoring this thread.

I wish someone would pay me $200/hr to read this crap.

No wonder divorce lawyers get rich.

Quote

I'm sure your aware that Mcnasty and their Lawyer may be monitoring this thread.

Hey! McNasty's lawyers.... you and your clients are all "Butt Holes" and deserve what you get!

Hi Krip,

Quote

To bad level heads can't prevail and settle this crap thru mediation.

I disagree. It seems to me ( from what I have read here & this is all that I know about it ) that the dz is not doing anything wrong.

Mediation IMO is when both parties are 'somewhat' in the wrong and they both need to meet in the middle; each gives a little until they reach agreement.

If I were the DZO and someone offered mediation, I would politely so 'No, thank you.'

Just my thoughts,

JerryBaumchen

Quote

Hi Krip,

Quote

To bad level heads can't prevail and settle this crap thru mediation.

I disagree. It seems to me ( from what I have read here & this is all that I know about it ) that the dz is not doing anything wrong.

Mediation IMO is when both parties are 'somewhat' in the wrong and they both need to meet in the middle; each gives a little until they reach agreement.

If I were the DZO and someone offered mediation, I would politely so 'No, thank you.'

Just my thoughts,

JerryBaumchen

Thats exactly right. The DZ in this case has done NOTHING wrong. Seriously... when I say nothing, I really mean NOTHING. These guys just keep maliciously attacking the good people at this dropzone with lies and causing nothing but trouble for their own personal gain. It really is a damn shame!

I had a lot of trouble settling in to Houston when I first moved out here from FL, and this dropzone's staff and the dzo consistently go out of their way to make people welcome in the family there. He bends over backwards every chance he gets to give and give and give and give for his staff, customers, and regular jumpers. They follow all rules, are very safety conscious, and extend every courtesy to those guys who use the airport. It just seems so unfair that a person (and people) like this who are now being attacked by butt heads like the ones they are dealing with now.

I'm really glad to call Skydive Houston my home now, and I just hope that they can keep fighting the good fight because they definitely in no way deserve anything that is being throw at them right now from these low lives who are behind this case. I keep thinking of that saying, 'the truth will set you free,' and I hope that it works out that way in this case because they have nothing but truth and innocence on their side. I also keep telling myself that karma is a bitch, so hopefully these guys behind this case get whats coming to them one day.

Quote

It seems to me ( from what I have read here & this is all that I know about it ) that the dz is not doing anything wrong.

Mediation IMO is when both parties are 'somewhat' in the wrong and they both need to meet in the middle; each gives a little until they reach agreement.

If I were the DZO and someone offered mediation, I would politely so 'No, thank you.'

You're exactly correct, Jerry.

The following are my personal opinions.

The problem to date is the judge wants concessions to be made to stave off the injunction until the matter can be settled once and for all at full trial in October. And those concessions are contrary to the FARs.

The 500-lb. gorilla in the case is the question of whether parachutists are allowed to land on the airport. That's what the plaintiffs are using to try and shut us down. All the other allegations of safety violations are minor in comparison. That's FAR 105.23. That one has been covered thoroughly in this forum, here, starting with message #16: /cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3552658;#3551945

The judge is obviously confused on that point. He wants some experts to clarify for him. The plaintiff's are lying about how to interpret the poorly written regulation, and so far, the defense attorney hasn't gone out of his way to clarify it adequately, which could be done easily just by following what I laid out in that other thread. The judge says he wants to do the right thing by the law, as soon as he figures out what it is. He's pleading with the lawyers to give him some expert testimony and legal precedents to guide him.

Once the plaintiffs are defeated on 105.23, the rest of their case will sink like the Titanic.

Now here's the wrinkle. If you subpoena an FAA expert to tell the judge what FAR 105.23 means, that likely gets the case thrown into federal court, and you start all over again, at great expense. The DZ is looking for a way to prove their point, while remaining in the local county court, with the benefit of what has already transpired.

If it does get into federal court jurisdiction, all these things that are contrary to the FAR's will be thrown out in a heartbeat. A county judge has no authority to require airport operations that aren't in compliance with the FAR's.

It's also time for the USPA to step in to testify how there are hundreds of drop zones operating around the country, landing on airports, legally. This is what are Airport Access Defense funds are for.

The judge needs to have impressed upon him the fact that skydivers landing on an airport where there is a drop zone is completely legal.

Wasn't skydive Houston the place where all the signs got torn down & water pumps damaged?

Hi Jerry, JR, et al.

I need to try and make myself clear

By suggesting mediation I wasn't implying that the DZ had done anything wrong. I was only trying to suggest a way to stop the flow of red ink from the DZ.

The lawyers like a good fight because they always get paid. I doubt Mcnasty's lawyer would be interested in this case on a contingency basis

I hope the DZ wins and has enough money let over to stay in business, without having to raise their jump rates to a unrealistic level.

Quote

Wasn't skydive Houston the place where all the signs got torn down & water pumps damaged?

Yes, but that was a different asshole from the current assholes.

Quote

If it does get into federal court jurisdiction, all these things that are contrary to the FAR's will be thrown out in a heartbeat. A county judge has no authority to require airport operations that aren't in compliance with the FAR's.

You should make sure your attny knows the case law on these things and presents it to the judge.
Some case law is available from USPA. Also Fred Morelli might be another good source. You can find him through SDC.

Quote

It's also time for the USPA to step in to testify how there are hundreds of drop zones operating around the country, landing on airports, legally. This is what are Airport Access Defense funds are for.

You have to ask for the funds. Don't expect USPA to call you. POC = Randy Ottinger.
If HQ turns you down, you can always elevate it to the FB, and make a lot of phone calls to BOD members.

.

Quote

Quote

Wasn't skydive Houston the place where all the signs got torn down & water pumps damaged?

Yes, but that was a different asshole from the current assholes.

Allegedly

Man, sounds like a lot of assholes out there. :)

Quote

Poll: Should a USPA member who is suing to shutdown a USPA Group Member Drop Zone be allowed to jump at any USPA Group Member Drop Zone?

Answer is yes. Here is why. This is a civil suit between home owners and a privately owned business. The FAA has nothing to do with anything other than maintaining specific law and safety regulations. The USPA has absolutely NOTHING to do with where a licensed skydiver may skydive. However the owner of the privately owned DZ has the right to refuse service to anyone.

I am a licensed skydiver and as it states on my ID card I am qualified to jump at any group member dropzone in the USA. But this doesn't mean the owner of the DZ MUST accept my money for a jump ticket.

I and many of my friends have been refused service at a particular DZ over the years now just because we do the right thing and bring up safety problems to the DZO. Instead of fixing the problem, he just bans us for life and the USPA does absolutely NOTHING about it.

So I say YES to the original poster's question. Any currently licensed skydiver should be allowed to jump at any USPA group member DZ as long as the owner accepts his money. I do NOT believe that the USPA should have anything at all to say about it seeing as they have not bothered to go to bat for all of us who have been thrown off our home DZ.

This matter should not involve the USPA in any way. It should only involve the FAA, the court and the plaintiffs and defendent.

I feel sorry for all that these 8 jerks have put the DZ, the DZO and the members of this DZ through but what the USPA does for or against one, must be done the same way for all.

With what I have seen those south end jerks do lately I would not be a bit surprised to find out that they had something to do with the sign issue last year. I even commented about that when it happened. Knowing them a bit more than I did then gives me enough to believe they would do something like that. Sad, very sad.