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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
I rather doubt that AOPA;'s contribution was large enough for them to
want to buy back the airplanes. I don't know if Boston lawyers bill $400 an hour, but I am sure they earn more an hour than I do in a day. As always, only the lawyers win. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
"ET" wrote in message ... 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. Yes. That's what my attorney told me. A big reason for a living trust is to hide your estate distribution plans. Trusts are private documents, wills are public. A living trust can be sued. And if you go into a nursing home, a living trust can be raided to pay the bills. With an irrevocable trust and enough time, you might be able to avoid that. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Jay Honeck wrote:
I rather doubt that AOPA;'s contribution was large enough for them to want to buy back the airplanes. I don't know if Boston lawyers bill $400 an hour, but I am sure they earn more an hour than I do in a day. As always, only the lawyers win. I see AOPA making claims about contributions that aren't enough to help the pilots keep their planes. In other words, in a twisted way, AOPA is getting something (for very little) out of this too. So what does "a substantial contribution" mean if the pilots are having this much trouble with what is left of the bill? Why not simply provide the legal staff free of charge? AOPA does have lawyers on staff, no? - Andrew |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Jay Honeck wrote: As always, only the lawyers win. Yeah, there's a reason this group is headed by an attorney. He's probably getting a kickback somewhere. George Patterson Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would not yield to the tongue. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ... Jay Honeck wrote: As always, only the lawyers win. Yeah, there's a reason this group is headed by an attorney. He's probably getting a kickback somewhere. Lawyers write all the rules of engagement, they have a legal monopoly (ABA) and a virtual monopoly in the legislatures -- did you think they'd set it up any other way? -- "Flying an airplane is just like riding a bike -- it's just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the spokes" -- Capt. Rex Cramer |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
... I've heard they've tried it twice. Don't know if the offered "fair market value, though), but the worst offenders are sports stadiums. In Phoenix, when they were getting ready to build BankOne Ballpark for the Diamondbacks it came close to a violent confrontation with the police but local protesters. Tom, While it's true that stadia developers are often the most egregious, the little guy does prevail from time to time. Even in AZ! Witness this case from Mesa, AZ... http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...Baileys02.html Regards, Jay Beckman Student Pilot - KCHD 7.4 Hrs ... Nowhere to go but up! |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
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 you only have a revocable living trust. However, if the RLT is used in conjuction with a FLP (Family Limited Partnership) its a different story. Asset protection can be accomplished when property is held in the FLP and those interests are owned by the trust. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
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. Actually it can when used in conjunction with a FLP. Asset protection can be accomplished when property is held in the FLP (Family Limited Partnership) and those interests are owned by the trust. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|