If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin wrote in news:ZPm8c.730$K91.2594@attbi_s02:
ET wrote: Kevin wrote in news:K_f8c.81882$1p.1206019@attbi_s54: Peter Clark wrote: On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:19:03 -0500, Andrew Gideon wrote: Cub Driver wrote: Furthermore, AOPA has not been injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a countersuit (though they could certainly support the pilots financially if they decide to do so). According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial contribution" to defense costs. Yet the pilots still had to sell their aircraft? They don't have the benefit of their lawyers doing everything for free. This is the very reason all of my assets are owned by a Revocable Living Trust . Bullet proof protection of assets . Your Revocable Living Trust protects you from NOTHING but the probate lawyers.... Anyone who told you different LIED to you. There are lots of potential good reasons for having that kind of trust, but protection from lawsuits is NOT one of them. You are correct IF the revocable living trust is used as the only means to protect assets. If the RLT is used in conjunction with a Family Limited Partnership its a different matter. Asset protection can be accomplished when property is held in a Family limited partnership and those interests are owned by the trust. Be very careful here as well. FLP's have been invalidated based on the "reason" they were set up. To be "bulletproof" an FLP needs to have a legit business purpose other than just asset protection. An FLP set up to run a bunch of rental properties, obviously meets this... but if it only owns your stock portfolio, you might have a problem. Either way, the existance of a living trust is irrelevant to the ability of the FLP to protect your assets. The FLP will work, or not, regardless of the RLT. -- ET "A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."---- Douglas Adams |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
As we say in the Army, beware of barracks lawyers.
This is the very reason all of my assets are owned by a Revocable Living Trust . Bullet proof protection of assets . |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin wrote:
If the revocable living trust is used alone you are correct. If used in conjunction with a FLP it's a different matter. Asset protection can be accomplished when property is held in the Family limited partnership and those interests are owned by the trust. The only way to protect your assets is to spend your money on things no one can take away. Couple years ago, I kinda felt I was about to be laid off. So I took the family to Disney World. I coulda paid more bills, but they'd eventually take it all back anyway so WTF. There's no way they're going to get those memories of plastered on smiles from riding the rockin' roller coaster. They mine, and always will be! -- http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/ "Ignorance is mankinds normal state, alleviated by information and experience." Veeduber |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote
The problem there is that they have formed an organization, and it is the org that is sueing these pilots. You don't have grounds for a countersuit unless this one is settled in favor of the pilots. After that occurs, they'll disolve the organization, and you won't have anyone to sue. Actually the complaint was not filed by the organization, but by individuals, it can be seen at http://www.stopthenoise.org/docs/COMPLAINT.ammended.pdf Plaintiffs: Robert F. Casey, Jr. 92 Washington Street, Ayer, Massachusetts. This presumably is the lawyer that someone said is donating his time, but is also a Plaintiff. Rita A. Casey, 92 Washington Street, Ayer, Massachusetts David McCoy, 187 Old Groton Road, Ayer, Massachusetts Amy McCoy, 187 Old Groton Road, Ayer, Massachusetts Gerard Hall, 34 Lovett Lane, Chelmsford, Massachusetts. Beverly Smith, 435 Old Ayer Road, Groton, Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------------ The STN site is pretty low tech and a bunch of rambling nonsense. I like this quote "FAA is an organization of General Aviation pilots tasked with policing, among other things, General Aviation". Really? And "It is not our intent to shut down General Aviation", yet a couple months ago, this same guy, Bill Burgoyne, said "There is no reason people need to have them (small airplanes) for transportation as private vehicles" article at http://www.generalaviationnews.com/e...olumn&-nothing Another website, that is a little more professionally done and more objective is http://www.planesenseofgroton.org/ although they are publicly posting N-numbers of airplanes that offend them. Is that legal? And if you want to see the height of anti aviation fascism, check out http://pages.prodigy.net/rockaway/newsletter229.htm Anyone else seen this garbage? These people have way too much time on their hands. And http://www.us-caw.org/ US Citizens Aviation Watch. Check the link for Monitored Airports, see if you're being watched. I know I'm not alone in these groups that this is all very disturbing. Especially if you are operating legally within the regs and being threatened in one way or another. I was once, ONCE. (Johnny Dangerously reference). Time to take the fight back to them. Chris |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Larry Dighera wrote: On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:27:02 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III" wrote in Message-Id: : The problem there is that they have formed an organization, and it is the org that is sueing these pilots. It sounds like a jurisdictional issue to me. I doubt the local court has the right to countermand the FAA's decisions. You don't understand. This is Massachusetts. Courts in this very Liberal state can do whatever they want, and they aren't accountable to anybody or anything. Yes, eventually a federal district court or appellate court might hear the case. But that will be way down the line, after much direct and collateral economic damage is done. And that's what the plaintiffs want. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Jeremy Lew wrote: I'm not defending the way these people are dealing with their issues, but the pratice area for the KBED-based flight school which is involved in these suits is 15-20 NM away from the airport. If that's "near", then it's practically impossible to live in eastern Massachusetts without being near three or four airports. It would be entirely unreasonable for prospective house buyers to consider that small plane noise might be a problem in this area. If anyone is interested, the practice area in question is NW of KBED, N of the Ft. Devens MOA. Yes the ironic thing is that the Fort Devens airfield (Moore Army Airfield, KAYE) would have made a lovely airport, especially for cargo operations, with excellent adjacent Rail and Freeway connections. The locals made sure this never happened when the Army Base closed. So now we have two large runways with X's all over them. (State police use one of the former runways for high speed driving training). With Moore field closed, the local airspace is available for a training area. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
John Doe wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:24:25 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid" wrote: I know I'm not alone in these groups that this is all very disturbing. Especially if you are operating legally within the regs and being threatened in one way or another. I was once, ONCE. (Johnny Dangerously reference). Time to take the fight back to them. Then you shall have one, Chris. This is precisely the problem. Allow me to introduce myself. I am an American homeowner who is considering establishing a Stop-the-Noise chapter with my local community. I have always had a live-and-let-live attitude towards aviation. More than that, I have always enjoyed watching it. I am an ex-Air Force zoomie. The issue is that flying "legally" does not make flying in a certain manner "right". One can fly with a bad attitude, perhaps with callous disregard for other pilots in the sky and those on the ground, comply with the letter of the FARs and yet be in the wrong. How about the guy that cuts in front of you on a "short final", forcing a go around? Life is full of situations where one's conduct or morals are wrong, yet that person is not technically breaking any laws. I have observed and even beeen personally victimized by pilots choosing to fly inverted over my home at altitudes less than 1,000' AGL, pilots diving at my neighbor's horse pasture in a Pitts in an apparent effort to "run" the animals (and once costing them $500 dollars in vet bills after an animal tangled in a fence, badly cutting itself). There are those few pilots that treat community noise abatement procedures as a personal affront or insult so they full-atttack the prop and mash in the throttle over subdivisions. Yes, perfectly legal in most cases. The PIC is responsible for safe takeoff procedures; who would question someone's motives? You know who you are. I have a busy life and demanding career. I have never wanted to involve myself in a ****ing contest with the local aviation community. I have bent over backwards to aviod lodging complaints with the local FSDO. Instead, I have recorded and reported instances of flagrant lawbreaking and irresponsible conduct by aerobatic pilots to AOPA and EAA, simply asking that efforts be made to unofficially contact these individuals and ask them to respect the laws and the public. Yet I've never received the courtesy of a response from either organization. That's been my reward for trying to collaboratively resolve a problem in a gentlemanly manner. Like anyone else, I bought my house with the expectation that I could freely excercise my constitutional right to peaceably use my property. I recognize that this is the 21st century, noise happens, and I don't have an issue with 95% of general aviation aircraft or their pilots. Aerobatics practice boxes don't appear on the terminal or sectional maps, nor does the FAA or flying club have to notify the public about same. That's wrong. I also have no sympathy for someone moving next to an airport then complaining about the noise. As I said, noise happens. But everyone has a limit. How many hours of aerobatics in some of the loudest light aircraft on the planet should a person on the ground have to tolerate? An hour every day? Ten hours of almost incessant window-rattling every nice weekend? Let's establish a consensus.. Where's the dividing line between a whining, thin-skinned psycho complainer and someone with a legitimate gripe? Does anyone here have a neighbor with an incessantly-barking dog? How about their kids parked in the drive next door with a 1,000-watt stereo in a Honda? When do the normal intrusions of a modern society cross the line? The line is definitely crossed when the neighbor gets a second, and larger barking dog and when their kids amp it up in response to your polite complaints. So that's the way it is. When a single high-performance aircraft can rattle windows over a 25 square mile area, day in and out, and the pilots refuse to consider any sort of mitigation, or even step it up in response to a request for a dialogue. Why should they? They're flying "legal". That's when organizations like Stop-the-Noise happen and grow. Ordinary people with legitimate gripes that are being ignored and dismissed. Regrettably, they will attract their share of obscessive anti-aviation kooks, but it's important to note why outfits like STN have happened. -- Because of the legitimate reasons that I describe above. I enjoy running my tricked-out 1968 Chevelle SS-396. I've had it since I was 22 years old and lost my driver's license in those days driving it. It shouldn't be my neighbor's problem that it costs me $25 bucks in gas to go to the nearest oval track on a nice weekend instead of opening the headers and running it every night by their homes. The same standards of cooperation and sensibility should apply to the avocation of aerobatic flight, as well. Pilots are an elite fraternity, they should be better citizens than a punk with a thousand-watt stereo in his car. This is an open plea to the aviation community to ignore the kooks and accept responsibility concerning the over-the-top impact that some of their activities have on the general public. There are many that don't believe that a constructive dialogue is possible. The only alternative is going to be escalating tension, complaints and even litigation as has already occurred. I don't want that, but our community may have no choice but to follow that example. It is *not* true that members of STN have refused to negotiate or work with the aviation community. My neighbors and I, as I described, have bent over backwards trying to seek a mutually-acceptable resolution to the local situation. The next move needs to be on the part of the EAA, IAC and aerobatic pilots. I have seen no willingness *whatsoever* to accept limitations such as time of day or hours of flight per day or to voluntarily avoid aerobatic practice over residences where the aged, sick, or infirm might reside. How about the guy that sleeps days and works graveyard shift at the fire department? Does he merit some sort of consideration? The IAC and EAA refuse to even acnowledge that there is a growing problem on both sides of the issue and the FAA is stuck in the middle. Time for a reality check. That's the way it is. The ball's in your court. Unless the aviation community and perhaps the FAA can work out a helpful response,.the path is going to be regrettably clear. Thank you for reading this. Sounds like a troll. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
"John Doe" wrote in message ... On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:24:25 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid" wrote: I know I'm not alone in these groups that this is all very disturbing. Especially if you are operating legally within the regs and being threatened in one way or another. I was once, ONCE. (Johnny Dangerously reference). Time to take the fight back to them. Then you shall have one, Chris. This is precisely the problem. Here is the deal, Mr. Doe. FAA Designees got caught lieing about noise and so EPA used Registered Professional engineers to prove it in Courts; it is why there is an SFAR36. If you want to do something about noise in the community, EPA are the ones with all the leverage. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"John Doe" wrote in message ... On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:24:25 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid" Time for a reality check. That's the way it is. The ball's in your court. Unless the aviation community and perhaps the FAA can work out a helpful response,.the path is going to be regrettably clear. The reality is that you do not have a Constitutional right to control the airspace above your property. The Supreme Court has already ruled on that and it is unlikely that this will ever be reversed. The reality is that pilots have as much right to enjoy their property as you have to enjoy yours. The reality is that aerobatics is an art form and probably Constitutionally protected freedom of expression. Efforts to legislate or sue aerobatics out of existence are probably a fruitless waste of time and money that will not solve the problem of aircraft noise and probably sour relations between property owners and pilots even further. The inability to come to a judicial or legislative solution will probably result in violence on both sides. That is the path which is regrettably clear. I think that we all would like to prevent that, so perhaps a different approach is needed. The reality is also that pilots are painfully aware of noise problems and most of us would like to do almost anything to avoid them. We are homeowners and property owners, too, you know, and a disproportionately large number of us do live near airports. You might start asking why we have aerobatics boxes in the first place. After all, why should every aerobatics pilot in the area be forced to practice over your house? Why is the problem concentrated there? Maybe what we need to do is to stop being so restrictive about where people practice aerobatics -- spread the problem around so that it is not excessively annoying to anyone. Unfortunately, the effect of organizations like Stop the Noise has been to concentrate the noise still further, making the lives of people who live in these areas even more unbearable than it was before. Stop the Noise and organizations like it are definitely a big part of the problem. They created this problem in the first place and are making it worse every day. You might want to think about that before starting your own chapter of Stop the Noise. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|