Stop the noise

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"

"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.

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

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.

"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

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.

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.

"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!

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.

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.