1999 Arlington crash jury award

[Kevin Davidson]

This one really has me bothered: 1999 NWEAA Arlington Fly-in, pilot in RV-6
rushes departure at high angle of attack, crashes, dies in the ensuing fire.
His survivors sue EAA and NWEAA claiming the fire crews didn't get there
soon enough. The stated claims don't even agree with the NTSB report.

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/781-full.html#194197

If this award stands, things are worse than I thought.

Kevin

[stol]

What I can't believe is there is no video of the event to show the
response time. There had to be thousands of people .there and more
then one camera... It just shows the the jury system has some serious
faults. It would have been nice if the widow would admit her husband
was showing off his new toy and had the classic departure stall while
trying to impress the crowd with the planes climb rate. Surely this is
not the fault of the EAA.....

Off my soapbox.

Ben

Kevin Davidson wrote:
> This one really has me bothered: 1999 NWEAA Arlington Fly-in, pilot in RV-6
> rushes departure at high angle of attack, crashes, dies in the ensuing fire.
> His survivors sue EAA and NWEAA claiming the fire crews didn't get there
> soon enough. The stated claims don't even agree with the NTSB report.
>
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/781-full.html#194197
>
> If this award stands, things are worse than I thought.
>
> Kevin

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 12 Jan 2007 07:17:57 -0800, "stol" > wrote:

>Kevin Davidson wrote:
>> This one really has me bothered: 1999 NWEAA Arlington Fly-in, pilot in RV-6
>> rushes departure at high angle of attack, crashes, dies in the ensuing fire.
>> His survivors sue EAA and NWEAA claiming the fire crews didn't get there
>> soon enough. The stated claims don't even agree with the NTSB report.
>>
>> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/781-full.html#194197
>
>What I can't believe is there is no video of the event to show the
>response time. There had to be thousands of people .there and more
>then one camera... It just shows the the jury system has some serious
>faults. It would have been nice if the widow would admit her husband
>was showing off his new toy and had the classic departure stall while
>trying to impress the crowd with the planes climb rate. Surely this is
>not the fault of the EAA.....

There is some video, as the local TV stations showed a clip of the airplane
burning.

The local rumor mill suggests the pilot had secured the right-side stick with
the seat belt. The accident occurred just prior to the start of the air show,
folks suspect the pilot was rushing to get off the field before the tower closed
down the traffic.

The jury award, I guess, boils down to expectations. I've been to major league
baseball games, for instance, and you can usually see an aid car at the stadium,
on the grounds that out of a crowd of 50,000 people, someone is probably going
to require medical attention. The jury apparently felt it was reasonable to
expect an event attracting thousands of airplanes to have a dedicated
fire/rescue unit.

There was a fire station on the airport grounds, but it was a normal city
station, not specifically for the airport and certainly not dedicated to
supporting the fly-in. I don't know if it had a separate door for letting the
trucks onto the airport itself, or if the fly-in had a means other than calling
9-1-1 to summon the fire department. If the answer was "no" to both questions,
that means that the summons for help would have had to go through the 9-1-1
dispatcher and the trucks would have had to drive around the outside of the
airport to the nearest gate. If so, it would explain the reported six-minute
reaction time.

But considering that the air show itself was about to start, I would be
surprised to discover there wasn't a fire/rescue vehicle standing by. You'd
think the fly-in's insurance would have required it.

I was in the announcer tower during another accident, and the fly-in's reaction
was speedy and efficient. There was a radio code used to notify persons of an
accident. I suspect the fire station was at least given a radio on that net.

There's a more detailed article on the lawsuit at:

http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070111/NEWS/701110321&SearchID=73268827728753


Ron Wanttaja

[[email protected]]

A cool thing you might not know: The NTSB reports are not
admissable in a brawl like this. Can't cross examine the
NTSB, so they are out. Leaves the plantiff to make
up anything they can sell to the jury.

Gotta remember, the goal isn't to find the truth.

Bill Hale


Kevin Davidson wrote:
> This one really has me bothered: 1999 NWEAA Arlington Fly-in, pilot in RV-6
> rushes departure at high angle of attack, crashes, dies in the ensuing fire.
> His survivors sue EAA and NWEAA claiming the fire crews didn't get there
> soon enough. The stated claims don't even agree with the NTSB report.
>
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/781-full.html#194197
>
> If this award stands, things are worse than I thought.
>
> Kevin

[wright1902glider]

There was a fire station on the airport grounds, but it was a normal
city
> station, not specifically for the airport and certainly not dedicated to
> supporting the fly-in. I don't know if it had a separate door for letting the
> trucks onto the airport itself, or if the fly-in had a means other than calling
> 9-1-1 to summon the fire department. If the answer was "no" to both questions,
> that means that the summons for help would have had to go through the 9-1-1
> dispatcher and the trucks would have had to drive around the outside of the
> airport to the nearest gate. If so, it would explain the reported six-minute
> reaction time.
>
> But considering that the air show itself was about to start, I would be
> surprised to discover there wasn't a fire/rescue vehicle standing by. You'd
> think the fly-in's insurance would have required it.



Good question Ron...

Having witnessed 2 crashes at airshows already (Blue Angels F-4 at Lake
Charles, LA in 1974 and an FM2 Wildcat at Houston in 2003) its
something I'll definately be looking for in the future. I don't
remember much about the 1974 crash, other than the noise and fireball.
The FM2 crashed about 4 miles to the southwest of Ellington Field and
the airport fire trucks went by me and out the gate at 70+ mph.

I think I'll be adding a decent-sized fire extinguisher to my
spectator-control equipment this year. A cotton and spruce gilder would
go up like a torch if a cigarette landed on it.

Harry

[jls]

wrote:
> A cool thing you might not know:

I got an idea you don't know much.


The NTSB reports are not
> admissable (sic) in a brawl like this.

Just as the report of a highway patrol officer or city police officer
is not admissible in a court of law.


Can't cross examine the
> NTSB, so they are out.

Not exactly true. If a witness who contributes to a NTSB report
appears and testifies in court, he can be cross-examined just like any
other witness.


Leaves the plantiff to make
> up anything they can sell to the jury.

Or someone like you to make up a lot of malarkey.

>
> Gotta remember, the goal isn't to find the truth.

That's exactly what juries are for, to find the truth.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:40:10 -0800, jls wrote
(in article . com>):

>
> wrote:
>> A cool thing you might not know:
>
> I got an idea you don't know much.
>
>
> The NTSB reports are not
>> admissable (sic) in a brawl like this.
>
> Just as the report of a highway patrol officer or city police officer
> is not admissible in a court of law.
>
>
> Can't cross examine the
>> NTSB, so they are out.
>
> Not exactly true. If a witness who contributes to a NTSB report
> appears and testifies in court, he can be cross-examined just like any
> other witness.
>

Actually, NTSB reports are inadmissible by statute. This came up in a recent
Cessna claim, too, and was reported by both AOPA and the Wall Street Journal.
The idea was that keeping the NTSB out of court would make them more
'independent.' However, as you note, although the report is inadmissible, you
certainly can introduce evidence used in the report. Thus, if NTSB has
witnesses who saw an aircraft buzzing cars, as in the Cessna incident, then
you should be able to subpoena those same witnesses. That Cessna's lawyers
did not do that I can only attribute to gross incompetence.

>
> Leaves the plantiff to make
>> up anything they can sell to the jury.
>
> Or someone like you to make up a lot of malarkey.
>
>>
>> Gotta remember, the goal isn't to find the truth.
>
> That's exactly what juries are for, to find the truth.
>

BWAHAHAHA! Right. Tell me another one. Juries do a poor job of finding the
truth, and everyone in the legal biz knows it (or should -- but they will not
always admit to it to outsiders). There are so many spectacular failures of
juries that one cannot even begin to catalog them all. Juries are typically
draw from the most gullible and least informed part of society --
deliberately. Attorneys do not want people who actually know something to
serve on a jury. That works great for Lizzie Borden and OJ Simpson, not so
well for aircraft manufacturers and airshow organizers.

[jls]

C J Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:40:10 -0800, jls wrote
> (in article . com>):
>
> >
> > wrote:
> >> A cool thing you might not know:
> >
> > I got an idea you don't know much.
> >
> >
> > The NTSB reports are not
> >> admissable (sic) in a brawl like this.
> >
> > Just as the report of a highway patrol officer or city police officer
> > is not admissible in a court of law.
> >
> >
> > Can't cross examine the
> >> NTSB, so they are out.
> >
> > Not exactly true. If a witness who contributes to a NTSB report
> > appears and testifies in court, he can be cross-examined just like any
> > other witness.
> >
>
> Actually, NTSB reports are inadmissible by statute. This came up in a recent
> Cessna claim, too, and was reported by both AOPA and the Wall Street Journal.
> The idea was that keeping the NTSB out of court would make them more
> 'independent.' However, as you note, although the report is inadmissible, you
> certainly can introduce evidence used in the report. Thus, if NTSB has
> witnesses who saw an aircraft buzzing cars, as in the Cessna incident, then
> you should be able to subpoena those same witnesses. That Cessna's lawyers
> did not do that I can only attribute to gross incompetence.
>
> >
> > Leaves the plantiff to make
> >> up anything they can sell to the jury.
> >
> > Or someone like you to make up a lot of malarkey.
> >
> >>
> >> Gotta remember, the goal isn't to find the truth.
> >
> > That's exactly what juries are for, to find the truth.
> >
>
> BWAHAHAHA! Right. Tell me another one. Juries do a poor job of finding the
> truth, and everyone in the legal biz knows it (or should -- but they will not
> always admit to it to outsiders).

Ah, then who is to find the truth, you? A judge? An LDS priest?



>There are so many spectacular failures of
> juries that one cannot even begin to catalog them all.

Name some.


That is some wild ranting if I ever heard it, coming from you even.
You get no credit howling sweeping generalizations. You got one bad
verdict, but it was cleared a bit by a verdict in Santa Monica. The
other one you don't know and weren't there. Give us some more. You
won't, of course. So you can't cite but one bum case to sully all the
rest.


>Juries are typically
> draw from the most gullible and least informed part of society --
> deliberately.

Cite?



>Attorneys do not want people who actually know something to
> serve on a jury.

Are you calling the American people stupid?

I've seen a few stupid juries, 99% of the ones I've seen are right
smart.



That works great for Lizzie Borden and OJ Simpson, not so
> well for aircraft manufacturers and airshow organizers.

Being incapable of getting fire-fighting equipment to the crash permits
a jury to find whether that constituted a failure to use due care by
the fly-in sponsors.
***********************************
In Young v. Young, Ann Eliza Webb Young sued Brigham Young for divorce
in 1873, claiming neglect, cruel treatment, and desertion (CHC
5:442-43). ...Claiming that Young was worth $8 million and had a
monthly income of $40,000, she asked for $1,000 per month pending the
trial, a total of $20,000 for counsel fees, and $200,000 for her
maintenance. Brigham Young denied her charges and claimed to have a
worth of only $600,000 and a monthly income of $6,000. More
fundamentally, he pointed out the inconsistency of granting a divorce
and alimony for a marriage that was not legally recognized." (Zion in
the Courts-A Legal History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, 1830-1900 by Firmage and Mangrum, 1988, Univ. of Ill. Press,
p.249)

---- what C. J. is still smarting over, explaining some of his
hatred for law and lawyers. Since lawyers came to mormondom, they
have been universally hated. BTW, Eliza and a few of Brigham's other
*57* wives sued and collected. Ah, the perils of statehood.

[wes marso]

I have lived for sixty years in this , we call our home land .In that time
I have seen much in the ways of chipping at the wall of freedom .knowledge
is the first step . Morality is the second .Personal virtues falls . then
the rest is easy. Lawyers are the guardian people of the constitution today
..Every day people are too busy making a living to take time out of daily
life to fight anymore. All the Communist and socialist of the world have
converged in America and have changed our legal system to suite them . We as
Christians side step these issues because we despise confrontations . We
have been eaten by lions for Centuries . We are told from the pulpit to be
followers and forgive , turning the other cheek . Lawyers Make the laws ,
Lawyers change the laws, lawyers make possible the enforcement of the laws,
and it starts from the white house on down...EVERYONE FROM THE PRESIDENT TO
THE TOWN Mayor IS A LAWYER . And you still wonder why our justice system is
failing??? lookup the national lawyers guild and see under their
subsidiaries how many lawyers belong to the socialist movement.. ALL of
them.."jls" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> C J Campbell wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:40:10 -0800, jls wrote
>> (in article . com>):
>>
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >> A cool thing you might not know:
>> >
>> > I got an idea you don't know much.
>> >
>> >
>> > The NTSB reports are not
>> >> admissable (sic) in a brawl like this.
>> >
>> > Just as the report of a highway patrol officer or city police officer
>> > is not admissible in a court of law.
>> >
>> >
>> > Can't cross examine the
>> >> NTSB, so they are out.
>> >
>> > Not exactly true. If a witness who contributes to a NTSB report
>> > appears and testifies in court, he can be cross-examined just like any
>> > other witness.
>> >
>>
>> Actually, NTSB reports are inadmissible by statute. This came up in a
>> recent
>> Cessna claim, too, and was reported by both AOPA and the Wall Street
>> Journal.
>> The idea was that keeping the NTSB out of court would make them more
>> 'independent.' However, as you note, although the report is inadmissible,
>> you
>> certainly can introduce evidence used in the report. Thus, if NTSB has
>> witnesses who saw an aircraft buzzing cars, as in the Cessna incident,
>> then
>> you should be able to subpoena those same witnesses. That Cessna's
>> lawyers
>> did not do that I can only attribute to gross incompetence.
>>
>> >
>> > Leaves the plantiff to make
>> >> up anything they can sell to the jury.
>> >
>> > Or someone like you to make up a lot of malarkey.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Gotta remember, the goal isn't to find the truth.
>> >
>> > That's exactly what juries are for, to find the truth.
>> >
>>
>> BWAHAHAHA! Right. Tell me another one. Juries do a poor job of finding
>> the
>> truth, and everyone in the legal biz knows it (or should -- but they will
>> not
>> always admit to it to outsiders).
>
> Ah, then who is to find the truth, you? A judge? An LDS priest?
>
>
>
>>There are so many spectacular failures of
>> juries that one cannot even begin to catalog them all.
>
> Name some.
>
>
> That is some wild ranting if I ever heard it, coming from you even.
> You get no credit howling sweeping generalizations. You got one bad
> verdict, but it was cleared a bit by a verdict in Santa Monica. The
> other one you don't know and weren't there. Give us some more. You
> won't, of course. So you can't cite but one bum case to sully all the
> rest.
>
>
>>Juries are typically
>> draw from the most gullible and least informed part of society --
>> deliberately.
>
> Cite?
>
>
>
>>Attorneys do not want people who actually know something to
>> serve on a jury.
>
> Are you calling the American people stupid?
>
> I've seen a few stupid juries, 99% of the ones I've seen are right
> smart.
>
>
>
> That works great for Lizzie Borden and OJ Simpson, not so
>> well for aircraft manufacturers and airshow organizers.
>
> Being incapable of getting fire-fighting equipment to the crash permits
> a jury to find whether that constituted a failure to use due care by
> the fly-in sponsors.
> ***********************************
> In Young v. Young, Ann Eliza Webb Young sued Brigham Young for divorce
> in 1873, claiming neglect, cruel treatment, and desertion (CHC
> 5:442-43). ...Claiming that Young was worth $8 million and had a
> monthly income of $40,000, she asked for $1,000 per month pending the
> trial, a total of $20,000 for counsel fees, and $200,000 for her
> maintenance. Brigham Young denied her charges and claimed to have a
> worth of only $600,000 and a monthly income of $6,000. More
> fundamentally, he pointed out the inconsistency of granting a divorce
> and alimony for a marriage that was not legally recognized." (Zion in
> the Courts-A Legal History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
> Saints, 1830-1900 by Firmage and Mangrum, 1988, Univ. of Ill. Press,
> p.249)
>
> ---- what C. J. is still smarting over, explaining some of his
> hatred for law and lawyers. Since lawyers came to mormondom, they
> have been universally hated. BTW, Eliza and a few of Brigham's other
> *57* wives sued and collected. Ah, the perils of statehood.
>

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 10:18:37 -0600, "wes marso" > wrote:

> EVERYONE FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE TOWN Mayor IS A LAWYER.

Dubya has a history degree. Our mayor is a retired banker.

Ron Wanttaja

[jls]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:40:42 -0800, Ron Wanttaja
> > wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 10:18:37 -0600, "wes marso"
> wrote:
> >
> >> EVERYONE FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE TOWN Mayor IS A LAWYER.
> >
> >Dubya has a history degree.
>
> And an MBA.
>
> As I think of it, it was the President who were lawyers that got
into
> trouble
>
> GW Bush - History, MBA
> WJ Clinton - International Affairs, Law (impeached)
> George Bush - Economics
> Ronald Reagan - Economics
> Jimmy Carter - Engineering
> Gerald Ford - Political Science and Economics
> Richard Nixon - History, Law (resigned)
> Lyndon Johnson - History
> John F. Kennedy - Iinternational affairs

> Dwight D. Eisenhower - West Point

Well, let's flesh this thing out here just a little bit, get the
fabric on and the wings rigged.

Gerald Ford was indeed a lawyer. Founders Jefferson, Madison, and
Hamilton were lawyers. Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer.

Majorities of the House and Senate are NOT lawyers.

Nixon was an accessory and conspirator in major felonies, including
burglary, witness tampering, subornation of perjury, and obstruction
of justice; Clinton lied about a blowjob.
Nixon would surely have been removed from office if he had been
impeached; Clinton was tried on a bill of impeachment by a House and
Senate loaded with Republicans and overwhelmingly acquitted.

Clinton's problems were political in nature; Nixon's were criminal.

[jls]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
[...]
>
> Clinton's [problem] stemmed from a sense of entitlement.

Pardon. But I think it was a sense of lust.
:)

[Montblack]

(" jls" wrote)
> Pardon. But I think it was a sense of lust.
> :)


http://www.apfn.org/apfn/riady.htm
Interesting read. Stick with it.

Clinton is as corrupt as they come - BOTH of them!


Montblack

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Montblack" > wrote

> http://www.apfn.org/apfn/riady.htm
> Interesting read. Stick with it.
>
> Clinton is as corrupt as they come - BOTH of them!

If you only believe half of it, there is some scary sh*t in there!
--
Jim in NC

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> "Montblack" > wrote
>
> > http://www.apfn.org/apfn/riady.htm
> > Interesting read. Stick with it.
> >
> > Clinton is as corrupt as they come - BOTH of them!
>
> If you only believe half of it, there is some scary sh*t in there!

A friend used to fly Clinton around when he was Gov. of Ark. When asked
why he doesn't write a book about it, he says, "I want to stay alive."

[kd5sak]

Might be overstating the case a bit, but I've found that the occasional
Repub. is a crook, but I find that many Demos. are absolutely EVIL. I'm
beginning to think that members of legislatures should be chosen by a draft
and be restricted to only one term. Especially they should not be able to
vote raises that took effect during their own terms. Also a death penalty
for bribes might prove useful. Such rules would make congress much more
effective and less crooked. Fact is though, it's too late, we already have a
ruling class in control.

HWB


"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Morgans" > wrote:
>
>> "Montblack" > wrote
>>
>> > http://www.apfn.org/apfn/riady.htm
>> > Interesting read. Stick with it.
>> >
>> > Clinton is as corrupt as they come - BOTH of them!
>>
>> If you only believe half of it, there is some scary sh*t in there!
>
> A friend used to fly Clinton around when he was Gov. of Ark. When asked
> why he doesn't write a book about it, he says, "I want to stay alive."

[Joe Kultgen]

"kd5sak" > wrote in
et:

> Might be overstating the case a bit, but I've found that the
> occasional Repub. is a crook, but I find that many Demos. are
> absolutely EVIL. I'm beginning to think that members of legislatures
> should be chosen by a draft and be restricted to only one term.
> Especially they should not be able to vote raises that took effect
> during their own terms. Also a death penalty for bribes might prove
> useful. Such rules would make congress much more effective and less
> crooked. Fact is though, it's too late, we already have a ruling class
> in control.
>
> HWB

Personally I'd like to replace elections with a lottery and make the
proceeds from the sale of lottery tickets their sole source of funding.

If you don't want the office buy tickets for the candidate of your choice

How many people would buy a ticket for the oval office if they had a
lottery long shot at getting the job?

The prime qualification for holding the office now is to win a popularity
contest. How could pure chance be any worse?

If pure chance is too scary, how about holding a lottery for seats on the
electoral college and letting them elect the president without a popular
vote? I'm sure if it works for choosing a president we could scale it down
to the state level for congress critters and other elected pests.

[[email protected]]

Richard Riley wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 14:51:20 -0500, " jls" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:40:42 -0800, Ron Wanttaja
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 10:18:37 -0600, "wes marso"
> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> EVERYONE FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE TOWN Mayor IS A LAWYER.
> >> >
> >> >Dubya has a history degree.
> >>
> >> And an MBA.
> >>
> >> As I think of it, it was the President who were lawyers that got
> >into
> >> trouble
> >>
> >> GW Bush - History, MBA
> >> WJ Clinton - International Affairs, Law (impeached)
> >> George Bush - Economics
> >> Ronald Reagan - Economics
> >> Jimmy Carter - Engineering
> >> Gerald Ford - Political Science and Economics
> >> Richard Nixon - History, Law (resigned)
> >> Lyndon Johnson - History
> >> John F. Kennedy - Iinternational affairs
> >
> >> Dwight D. Eisenhower - West Point
> >
> >Well, let's flesh this thing out here just a little bit, get the
> >fabric on and the wings rigged.
> >
> >Gerald Ford was indeed a lawyer.
>
> Oops, right you are.

Was Johnson (impeached) a lawyer?

> ...
> >
> >Nixon was an accessory and conspirator in major felonies, including
> >burglary, witness tampering, subornation of perjury, and obstruction
> >of justice;

And more, including conspiracies to commit burglary and arson
have some out since his tapes have been published.

> > Clinton lied about a blowjob.
>
> And suborned purjury, tampered with witnesses, and obstructed justice.

There wasn't enough evidence that he did any of those things
to even charge him. It isn't even possible to obstruct justice
in a lawsuit. That doesn't mean he didn't do the, but if he did,
he did them well (practice makes perfect).

> The chief law enforcement officer of the US should not be doing any of
> those things, no matter what party he's in.

Doh! Nor should anyone else.
The President of the untied States is not a law enforcement officer.

--

FF

[kd5sak]

> Personally I'd like to replace elections with a lottery and make the
> proceeds from the sale of lottery tickets their sole source of funding.
>
> If you don't want the office buy tickets for the candidate of your choice
>
> How many people would buy a ticket for the oval office if they had a
> lottery long shot at getting the job?
>
> The prime qualification for holding the office now is to win a popularity
> contest. How could pure chance be any worse?
>
> If pure chance is too scary, how about holding a lottery for seats on the
> electoral college and letting them elect the president without a popular
> vote? I'm sure if it works for choosing a president we could scale it
> down
> to the state level for congress critters and other elected pests.
>
Actually, my first thoughts were to fill all offices by a draft, pay no more
than expences
and make you come home when the term was up. If you couldn't steal yourself
rich the
lawyer types would definitely lack motivation to seek additional time in D.
C.

Harold
KD5SAK

[dpilot]

We don't have a justice system.
We have a legal system.
We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic.
(and to the democracy for which it stands?) NOT
JimV

On Jan 14, 11:18 am, "wes marso" > wrote:
> I have lived for sixty years in this , we call our home land .In that time
> I have seen much in the ways of chipping at the wall of freedom .knowledge
> is the first step . Morality is the second .Personal virtues falls . then
> the rest is easy. Lawyers are the guardian people of the constitution today
> .Every day people are too busy making a living to take time out of daily
> life to fight anymore. All the Communist and socialist of the world have
> converged in America and have changed our legal system to suite them . We as
> Christians side step these issues because we despise confrontations . We
> have been eaten by lions for Centuries . We are told from the pulpit to be
> followers and forgive , turning the other cheek . Lawyers Make the laws ,
> Lawyers change the laws, lawyers make possible the enforcement of the laws,
> and it starts from the white house on down...EVERYONE FROM THE PRESIDENT TO
> THE TOWN Mayor IS A LAWYER . And you still wonder why our justice system is
> failing??? lookup the national lawyers guild and see under their
> subsidiaries how many lawyers belong to the socialist movement.. ALL ofthem.."jls" > wrote in oglegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > C J Campbell wrote:
> >> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:40:10 -0800, jls wrote
> >> (in article . com>):
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> A cool thing you might not know:
>
> >> > I got an idea you don't know much.
>
> >> > The NTSB reports are not
> >> >> admissable (sic) in a brawl like this.
>
> >> > Just as the report of a highway patrol officer or city police officer
> >> > is not admissible in a court of law.
>
> >> > Can't cross examine the
> >> >> NTSB, so they are out.
>
> >> > Not exactly true. If a witness who contributes to a NTSB report
> >> > appears and testifies in court, he can be cross-examined just like any
> >> > other witness.
>
> >> Actually, NTSB reports are inadmissible by statute. This came up in a
> >> recent
> >> Cessna claim, too, and was reported by both AOPA and the Wall Street
> >> Journal.
> >> The idea was that keeping the NTSB out of court would make them more
> >> 'independent.' However, as you note, although the report is inadmissible,
> >> you
> >> certainly can introduce evidence used in the report. Thus, if NTSB has
> >> witnesses who saw an aircraft buzzing cars, as in the Cessna incident,
> >> then
> >> you should be able to subpoena those same witnesses. That Cessna's
> >> lawyers
> >> did not do that I can only attribute to gross incompetence.
>
> >> > Leaves the plantiff to make
> >> >> up anything they can sell to the jury.
>
> >> > Or someone like you to make up a lot of malarkey.
>
> >> >> Gotta remember, the goal isn't to find the truth.
>
> >> > That's exactly what juries are for, to find the truth.
>
> >> BWAHAHAHA! Right. Tell me another one. Juries do a poor job of finding
> >> the
> >> truth, and everyone in the legal biz knows it (or should -- but they will
> >> not
> >> always admit to it to outsiders).
>
> > Ah, then who is to find the truth, you? A judge? An LDS priest?
>
> >>There are so many spectacular failures of
> >> juries that one cannot even begin to catalog them all.
>
> > Name some.
>
> > That is some wild ranting if I ever heard it, coming from you even.
> > You get no credit howling sweeping generalizations. You got one bad
> > verdict, but it was cleared a bit by a verdict in Santa Monica. The
> > other one you don't know and weren't there. Give us some more. You
> > won't, of course. So you can't cite but one bum case to sully all the
> > rest.
>
> >>Juries are typically
> >> draw from the most gullible and least informed part of society --
> >> deliberately.
>
> > Cite?
>
> >>Attorneys do not want people who actually know something to
> >> serve on a jury.
>
> > Are you calling the American people stupid?
>
> > I've seen a few stupid juries, 99% of the ones I've seen are right
> > smart.
>
> > That works great for Lizzie Borden and OJ Simpson, not so
> >> well for aircraft manufacturers and airshow organizers.
>
> > Being incapable of getting fire-fighting equipment to the crash permits
> > a jury to find whether that constituted a failure to use due care by
> > the fly-in sponsors.
> > ***********************************
> > In Young v. Young, Ann Eliza Webb Young sued Brigham Young for divorce
> > in 1873, claiming neglect, cruel treatment, and desertion (CHC
> > 5:442-43). ...Claiming that Young was worth $8 million and had a
> > monthly income of $40,000, she asked for $1,000 per month pending the
> > trial, a total of $20,000 for counsel fees, and $200,000 for her
> > maintenance. Brigham Young denied her charges and claimed to have a
> > worth of only $600,000 and a monthly income of $6,000. More
> > fundamentally, he pointed out the inconsistency of granting a divorce
> > and alimony for a marriage that was not legally recognized." (Zion in
> > the Courts-A Legal History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
> > Saints, 1830-1900 by Firmage and Mangrum, 1988, Univ. of Ill. Press,
> > p.249)
>
> > ---- what C. J. is still smarting over, explaining some of his
> > hatred for law and lawyers. Since lawyers came to mormondom, they
> > have been universally hated. BTW, Eliza and a few of Brigham's other
> > *57* wives sued and collected. Ah, the perils of statehood.

[[email protected]]

Richard Riley wrote:
> On 16 Jan 2007 13:44:00 -0800, wrote:
>
> >
> >Was Johnson (impeached) a lawyer?
>
> Andrew? As near as I can read his biography, he was a tailor.

Ah yes, I recall that too.

>
> >
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> >Nixon was an accessory and conspirator in major felonies, including
> >> >burglary, witness tampering, subornation of perjury, and obstruction
> >> >of justice;
> >
> >And more, including conspiracies to commit burglary and arson
> >have some out since his tapes have been published.
>
> Haven't seen that.

I heard the tape played on C-span. They also played the tape
where Johnson told the President of Hagar slacks that he
wanted another inch in the crotch between "the bung hole
and where yer nuts hang down". Hilarious.

>
> >The President of the untied States is not a law enforcement officer.
>
> The head of the FBI reports to the Attorney General. The AG reports
> to who?

The same person as does the Surgeon General.

In most cities the Chief of Police reports to the mayor. The mayor,
however, is seldom a law-enforcement officer and never on account
of being mayor. Having supervisory authority over a person does
not confer on that supervisor the authorities of those he supervises.

--

FF

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

Some things never change. And they won't until we put people in Congress
willing to make changes.

Here's another example of the legal system being abused in an aviation
context. I wrote this one in '04. The things I found while researching the
material for this story left me speechless.

http://www.aero-news.net/news/commbus.cfm?ContentBlockID=142CE1D0-8F88-4A12-9DDC-1AFF62B2765A&Dynamic=1


"dpilot" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> We don't have a justice system.
> We have a legal system.
> We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic.
> (and to the democracy for which it stands?) NOT
> JimV
>
> On Jan 14, 11:18 am, "wes marso" > wrote:
>> I have lived for sixty years in this , we call our home land .In that
>> time
>> I have seen much in the ways of chipping at the wall of freedom
>> .knowledge
>> is the first step . Morality is the second .Personal virtues falls . then
>> the rest is easy. Lawyers are the guardian people of the constitution
>> today
>> .Every day people are too busy making a living to take time out of daily
>> life to fight anymore. All the Communist and socialist of the world have
>> converged in America and have changed our legal system to suite them . We
>> as
>> Christians side step these issues because we despise confrontations . We
>> have been eaten by lions for Centuries . We are told from the pulpit to
>> be
>> followers and forgive , turning the other cheek . Lawyers Make the laws ,
>> Lawyers change the laws, lawyers make possible the enforcement of the
>> laws,
>> and it starts from the white house on down...EVERYONE FROM THE PRESIDENT
>> TO
>> THE TOWN Mayor IS A LAWYER . And you still wonder why our justice system
>> is
>> failing??? lookup the national lawyers guild and see under their
>> subsidiaries how many lawyers belong to the socialist movement.. ALL
>> ofthem.."jls" > wrote in
>> oglegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > C J Campbell wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:40:10 -0800, jls wrote
>> >> (in article . com>):
>>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> A cool thing you might not know:
>>
>> >> > I got an idea you don't know much.
>>
>> >> > The NTSB reports are not
>> >> >> admissable (sic) in a brawl like this.
>>
>> >> > Just as the report of a highway patrol officer or city police
>> >> > officer
>> >> > is not admissible in a court of law.
>>
>> >> > Can't cross examine the
>> >> >> NTSB, so they are out.
>>
>> >> > Not exactly true. If a witness who contributes to a NTSB report
>> >> > appears and testifies in court, he can be cross-examined just like
>> >> > any
>> >> > other witness.
>>
>> >> Actually, NTSB reports are inadmissible by statute. This came up in a
>> >> recent
>> >> Cessna claim, too, and was reported by both AOPA and the Wall Street
>> >> Journal.
>> >> The idea was that keeping the NTSB out of court would make them more
>> >> 'independent.' However, as you note, although the report is
>> >> inadmissible,
>> >> you
>> >> certainly can introduce evidence used in the report. Thus, if NTSB has
>> >> witnesses who saw an aircraft buzzing cars, as in the Cessna incident,
>> >> then
>> >> you should be able to subpoena those same witnesses. That Cessna's
>> >> lawyers
>> >> did not do that I can only attribute to gross incompetence.
>>
>> >> > Leaves the plantiff to make
>> >> >> up anything they can sell to the jury.
>>
>> >> > Or someone like you to make up a lot of malarkey.
>>
>> >> >> Gotta remember, the goal isn't to find the truth.
>>
>> >> > That's exactly what juries are for, to find the truth.
>>
>> >> BWAHAHAHA! Right. Tell me another one. Juries do a poor job of finding
>> >> the
>> >> truth, and everyone in the legal biz knows it (or should -- but they
>> >> will
>> >> not
>> >> always admit to it to outsiders).
>>
>> > Ah, then who is to find the truth, you? A judge? An LDS priest?
>>
>> >>There are so many spectacular failures of
>> >> juries that one cannot even begin to catalog them all.
>>
>> > Name some.
>>
>> > That is some wild ranting if I ever heard it, coming from you even.
>> > You get no credit howling sweeping generalizations. You got one bad
>> > verdict, but it was cleared a bit by a verdict in Santa Monica. The
>> > other one you don't know and weren't there. Give us some more. You
>> > won't, of course. So you can't cite but one bum case to sully all the
>> > rest.
>>
>> >>Juries are typically
>> >> draw from the most gullible and least informed part of society --
>> >> deliberately.
>>
>> > Cite?
>>
>> >>Attorneys do not want people who actually know something to
>> >> serve on a jury.
>>
>> > Are you calling the American people stupid?
>>
>> > I've seen a few stupid juries, 99% of the ones I've seen are right
>> > smart.
>>
>> > That works great for Lizzie Borden and OJ Simpson, not so
>> >> well for aircraft manufacturers and airshow organizers.
>>
>> > Being incapable of getting fire-fighting equipment to the crash permits
>> > a jury to find whether that constituted a failure to use due care by
>> > the fly-in sponsors.
>> > ***********************************
>> > In Young v. Young, Ann Eliza Webb Young sued Brigham Young for divorce
>> > in 1873, claiming neglect, cruel treatment, and desertion (CHC
>> > 5:442-43). ...Claiming that Young was worth $8 million and had a
>> > monthly income of $40,000, she asked for $1,000 per month pending the
>> > trial, a total of $20,000 for counsel fees, and $200,000 for her
>> > maintenance. Brigham Young denied her charges and claimed to have a
>> > worth of only $600,000 and a monthly income of $6,000. More
>> > fundamentally, he pointed out the inconsistency of granting a divorce
>> > and alimony for a marriage that was not legally recognized." (Zion in
>> > the Courts-A Legal History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
>> > Saints, 1830-1900 by Firmage and Mangrum, 1988, Univ. of Ill. Press,
>> > p.249)
>>
>> > ---- what C. J. is still smarting over, explaining some of his
>> > hatred for law and lawyers. Since lawyers came to mormondom, they
>> > have been universally hated. BTW, Eliza and a few of Brigham's other
>> > *57* wives sued and collected. Ah, the perils of statehood.
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[olympusE1]

On Jan 20, 3:34 pm, "Pinkie Pendejo" > wrote:
> Some things never change. And they won't until we put people in Congress
> willing to make changes.
>
> Here's another example of the legal system being abused in an aviation
> context. I wrote this one in '04. The things I found while researching the
> material for this story left me speechless.
>
....too bad you can't/won't do more stories like this... you know, the
kind that LEAVE YOU SPEECHLESS?