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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"VideoGuy" gkasten at brick dot net wrote in message ... "Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ... Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes near airports that already existed. Here's another example of this exact senerio; A big-time builder has purhased a large hunk of land in the 500 year flood plain. Dug out small lakes and ponds to make other areas a few inches higher than this high water mark. Now wants to develop a "New Town" concept- houses, apartments, condos, retail, etc. Local city is so busy rubbing their greedy little hands together, already counting the anticipated taxes that there seems to be NOTHING this builder wants that he can't have. The CITY-OWNED municipal airport is just across the street and down the road about a quarter mile. Traffic pattern is now over this formerly agricultural field. This airport has been here since before WWII, and has a flight school that has operated continuously, with the same ownership for almost 25 years. Think that's bizarre, read up on the abuse of eminent domain by local governments, particularly where they grab land for shopping malls, Trumps' casino, etc. So much for "Public Use" doctrine from the Constitution. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"David Cartwright" wrote in message
... "airads" wrote in message om... Now they want the FAA to require A/C registration numbers to be enlarged and located under the wings "where they belong". On this side of the pond, you have to have your registration on the underside of your left wing anyway. Which country is that? Paul |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Sixkiller wrote:
"VideoGuy" gkasten at brick dot net wrote in message ... "Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ... Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes near airports that already existed. Here's another example of this exact senerio; A big-time builder has purhased a large hunk of land in the 500 year flood plain. Dug out small lakes and ponds to make other areas a few inches higher than this high water mark. Now wants to develop a "New Town" concept- houses, apartments, condos, retail, etc. Local city is so busy rubbing their greedy little hands together, already counting the anticipated taxes that there seems to be NOTHING this builder wants that he can't have. The CITY-OWNED municipal airport is just across the street and down the road about a quarter mile. Traffic pattern is now over this formerly agricultural field. This airport has been here since before WWII, and has a flight school that has operated continuously, with the same ownership for almost 25 years. Think that's bizarre, read up on the abuse of eminent domain by local governments, particularly where they grab land for shopping malls, Trumps' casino, etc. So much for "Public Use" doctrine from the Constitution. Wal-Mart is well known to use this method to obtain land the owners refuse to sell. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
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 . |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin" wrote in message news:RIf8c.82383$Cb.1096751@attbi_s51... Tom Sixkiller wrote: Local city is so busy rubbing their greedy little hands together, already counting the anticipated taxes that there seems to be NOTHING this builder wants that he can't have. The CITY-OWNED municipal airport is just across the street and down the road about a quarter mile. Traffic pattern is now over this formerly agricultural field. This airport has been here since before WWII, and has a flight school that has operated continuously, with the same ownership for almost 25 years. Think that's bizarre, read up on the abuse of eminent domain by local governments, particularly where they grab land for shopping malls, Trumps' casino, etc. So much for "Public Use" doctrine from the Constitution. Wal-Mart is well known to use this method to obtain land the owners refuse to sell. 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. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:24:58 GMT, Kevin wrote:
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 . How would a living trust prevent someone from needing to pay legal bills incurred defending themselves from a suit brought against them? The Stop The Noise group is headed by a lawyer who is doing all their work for free. The pilots have to pay their defense bills. IMO if the people involved in this case on the plaintiff's side had to actually foot the bill for the fees, time, court costs, etc that the pilots have to it would never have even gotten to court, but as it is they have nothing at all to lose - they're not paying anything except some nominal filing and court fees. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin" wrote:
This is the very reason all of my assets are owned by a Revocable Living Trust . Bullet proof protection of assets . Are you sure that's going to work in your state? Here's sample advice for physicians that it won't: http://www.physiciansnews.com/finance/1101dv.html |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Clark wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:24:58 GMT, Kevin wrote: 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 . How would a living trust prevent someone from needing to pay legal bills incurred defending themselves from a suit brought against them? The Stop The Noise group is headed by a lawyer who is doing all their work for free. The pilots have to pay their defense bills. If all your assets were untouchable you would have no need to spend money defending yourself. Let them get a default judgment. If you have no assets in your name and legally own nothing they can never collect. I was once a manager with a national wholesale finance company ( floorplanning ). We had a dealer take us for $250K because all of his personal assets were protected by his trust. We spent about $200K in legal fees and collected nothing. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
TaxSrv wrote:
"Kevin" wrote: This is the very reason all of my assets are owned by a Revocable Living Trust . Bullet proof protection of assets . Are you sure that's going to work in your state? Here's sample advice for physicians that it won't: http://www.physiciansnews.com/finance/1101dv.html For the ultimate in asset protection and estate planning the offshore Asset Protection Trust is the way to go. When you combine domestic strategies with the the asset protection trust, you become 99.9% bullet proof. With an offshore trust controlling your asset, it becomes very difficult if not impossible for a creditor to gain control or get the assets sent back to the U.S. Just like a revocable living trust, the offshore asset protection trust allows you to avoid probate and distribute your assets to your heirs. Since it is governed by an offshore jurisdiction, the trust is not subject to U.S. claims or orders from U.S. courts. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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. -- ET "A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."---- Douglas Adams |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stop the noise | airads | Aerobatics | 131 | July 2nd 04 01:28 PM |
Plasma Reduces Jet Noise (Turbines?) | sanman | Home Built | 1 | June 27th 04 12:45 AM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
Noise Nazis at it Again! | Orval Fairbairn | Home Built | 13 | December 9th 03 10:06 PM |
Aviation Conspiracy: Bush Backs Down On Tower Privatization Issue!!! | Bill Mulcahy | General Aviation | 3 | October 1st 03 05:39 AM |