A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Aerobatics
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Stop the noise



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old March 24th 04, 01:35 PM
Paul Sengupta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


  #42  
Old March 24th 04, 02:05 PM
Kevin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #43  
Old March 24th 04, 02:24 PM
Kevin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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 .


  #44  
Old March 24th 04, 02:34 PM
Tom Sixkiller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #45  
Old March 24th 04, 02:58 PM
Ed Haywood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Roger Halstead" wrote in message

If the AOPA is serious they really need to come up with a good
countersuit that would cost those filing the original lawsuit far more
than what they are aksing. That they have caused great financial harm
(pilots having to sell planes to meet expenses) is already an arguing
point.



This was a hot topic of discussion on the aerobatics e-mail list last fall.

I wonder how truly serious AOPA is about this issue. They had to be dragged
kicking and screaming into the fight. They got a lot of angry letters and
cancelled memberships before they did anything. To their credit, once they
realized how lame they looked, they did take action to correct it.

Playing "dueling lawyers" won't have the desired effect. The founder of STN
is a Boston lawyer who does all the legal work himself. He has a reputation
of using lawsuits to bully others. You can't cost him more than his time,
which he already donates willingly.


  #46  
Old March 24th 04, 03:23 PM
Peter Clark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #47  
Old March 24th 04, 03:35 PM
TaxSrv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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

  #48  
Old March 24th 04, 04:17 PM
Kevin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #49  
Old March 24th 04, 04:46 PM
Kevin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #50  
Old March 24th 04, 05:49 PM
ET
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.