Bob Kuczewski's Expulsion Info Update

[Joe Faust]

The destination was not to climb up on a cross; the destination was the Father's Will; the cross arrives whenever one pursues good ends in an environment that has need of change. There is suffering when good is sought that entails positions that are in place that need change. Jesus moved toward heart changes in the midst of corruption; the cross was reaction from those not wanting change. My guess is that Jesus wanted to avoid the Cross if he could, but his Father's Will took priority. Corrupt powers gave the cross, not his deeds.

Actions speak loudly. We have open ears for what progress any director has made toward some of the special targets Bob espoused nine years ago. Listening, …

Sound argument points ought not be tossed out to make room for unsound points. If gray entails tossing out core matter, then a target may be muddied and lost.

And certainly, never toss out a safe-flying member who earnestly is active for good changes in the Org.
Every remaining member who becomes aware of the wrong meted out to Bob by the Org and does not work for Bob's reinstatement might consider joining Bob outside the org.

Above is a response to Steve's

I supported some of Bob's goals and tried to help him temper his arguements and attempt to see grey occasionally. I finally gave up totally frustrated. He seemed determined and destined to climb up on a cross

.

Bob did not climb up on the cross; he was hung without rebuttal equity.
Members and directors owe a comprehensive logically sound do-over or perhaps a profound use of a fair arbitration process. Maybe online polling after evidence is presented from all interested parties?

[Steve Forslund]

To be clear I was referring to Bob's tendency to be adversarial and not to the expulsion.

[BilleFly]

..
I was referring to Bob's tendency to be adversarial and not to the expulsion.

So was I , (in my last post) ; as far as the expulsion goes , i may need to rethink that
because of Ben's last post on page , (2). That was a rather GOOD argument
there Ben !!!

Bille

[BilleFly]

hmmmm sounds kinda familiar…

8)

YEA ---- I bin Told, to cut down on the coffee !!

It didn't work .

Bille

[Blindrodie]

YEA ---- I bin Told, to cut down on the coffee !!

I was actually referring to our good buddy Ben! Not to worry. Just good to see you posting up again...

8)

[Bill C.]

Ben, Here is more information that can be checked out on the San Diego City website as an independent source that will prove that the City of San Diego reneged on their lawsuit settlement concerning Hang Gliding at Torrey Pines.
This was the proof that Graeme H. demanded of me then refused to verify my research:

Graeme Henderson Re: The heat is on! Sat, Jun 13 2015, 3:50:42 pm
“I am also bemused by your claim that the "Evidence" is posted at the US Hawks, all that is there is lies and spin designed to fool the easily fooled.--"
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Independent evidence of:
San Diego Shenanigans
There has been some discussion about how the City of San Diego has protected the Torrey Pines Gliderport Concessionaire (David Jebb and now Robin Marien) from oversight. This topic exposes some of those actions.
Let's start with a step by step exposition of the City Council violating the terms of the 2007 CLEAN lawsuit settlement. Note that the links to the City of San Diego documents are given, but the appropriate sections from each document are also included below for your convenience.
STEP 1. Start with the San Diego City Charter, Article V, Section 43.
You can find the full document here:
http://docs.sandiego.gov/citycharter/Article%20V.pdf
Go to section 43 (currently page 16), and see that it defines "Advisory Boards and Committeees".
Read section 43(a) and convince yourself that it defines "Advisory Boards".
Read section 43(b) and convince yourself that it defines "Citizens' Committees".
STEP 2. Read the CLEAN Settlement Agreement from 2007.
You can find the full document here:
http://docs.sandiego.gov/council_reso_o ... 302749.pdf
Read the paragraph that starts on Page 1, and focus on sub-paragraph (4).
Convince yourself that the City of San Diego agreed to form an "Advisory Board".
STEP 3. Read what the City Council actually passed.
You can find the full document here:
http://docs.sandiego.gov/council_reso_o ... 303300.pdf
Read the paragraph on page 2 that starts with "BE IT RESOLVED".
Convince yourself that it establishes an "Advisory Board" under City Charter 43(b).
Remind yourself, that Advisory Boards can only be established under 43(a)!!!
Was this an "accident"? Why does it matter?
Re-read the City Charter sections 43(a) and 43(b). Note the key differences between Advisory Boards and Citizens Committees. In particular note that Citizen's Committees have very narrow scope and must terminate. Advisory Boards have no such restrictions. This wasn't done by "accident". Someone in the City INTENTIONALLY avoided 43(a) and INTENTIONALLY created the "Advisory Board" under 43(b).
That's how far the Torrey Pines Corruption has gone in San Diego.
These are the supporting quotes from the documents referenced above:
City Charter Article V, Section 43(a) wrote:
The City Council may by ordinance create and establish advisory boards. Such boards shall be advisory to the Mayor, Council or City Manager as may be designated by ordinance. All members of such boards shall be appointed by the Mayor with Council confirmation, and the terms of office of such members may extend beyond the elective term of the appointing Mayor. The members of such boards shall serve without compensation and it shall be their duty to consult and advise with the Mayor, Council or City Manager, as the case may be, but not to direct the conduct of any Department or Division. Members of such advisory boards shall be limited to a maximum of eight consecutive years in office and an interval of four (4) years must pass before such persons can be reappointed.
City Charter Article V, Section 43(b) wrote:
The Mayor, City Council or City Manager may create and establish citizens’ committees. Such committees shall be created and established only for the purpose of advising on questions with clearly defined objectives, and shall be temporary in nature, and shall be dissolved upon the completion of the objectives for which they were created. Committee members shall serve without compensation.
CLEAN Settlement Agreement from June 27th, 2007 wrote:
WHEREAS, the settlement agreement requires the City to:
(4) Establish a Torrey Pines City Park Advisory Board whose members shall be appointed within 120 days of the date of the agreement and who shall include representatives of the following Gliderport user groups: (1) paragliders, (2) hangliders, (3) sailplane gliders, and (4) radio-controlled model sailplane gliders as well as at least two representatives from non-profit environmental groups.
San Diego City Council Resolution R-303300 wrote:
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Diego, that there is hereby established pursuant to City Charter section 43(b) a Torrey Pines City Park Advisory Board to consist of eleven members who shall serve without compensation. The members shall serve for two year staggered terms. The members shall be appointed by the Mayor. The Board shall be composed of the following:
One at-large member;
One member from the San Diego Hangliding and Paragliding Association, to represent paragliders, and one member from the Torrey Hawks Hang Gliding Club who is also a member of the San Diego Hangliding and Paragliding Association, to represent hangliders.

[Ben Reese]

When I started this thread I chose the title wording carefully..

"B K's Expulsion Update"

I had new information regarding some things I believed BK had done which
warranted his expulsion. New information not rehashing the old stuff.

The new evidence:

The evidence was contrary to my accusations of contacting a plaintiff's attorneys.
The evidence was contrary to BK wanting to testify with the explicit goal of harming USHPA.
The evidence was contrary to BK committing purgery which is what some were saying.

Before he agreeed to testify as an expert witness, BK said in writing to plaintiff Attorneys
that his goals were not the same as theirs. That he did not want to damage his work
to get oversite established at the Torrey Pines glide port.

Accusations are one thing and records in writing are another thing. Seperating the two
is a requirement when judging a persons intent. BK's intent was to testify truthfully about
a subject he knew well. That is why the plaintiff's attorney approached him. BK knew his
testimony would be damaging to the defendant ACA and USHPA who was backing them.
The Plaintiffs attorneys knew BK's testimony would be useful in their case because of
video recorded SD City Council meetings where BK has made endless appearances.

His testimony was a natural result of his activism and efforts to solve a known problem
with operations conducted by ACA. BK continues to go to these meetings and speak.
I am not endorsing his style of communication at these meetings. I honestly find his
style offensive and counter productive. That is my personal judgement. He is free to
present his info in these meetings under the 1st Admendment "Freedom of Speech".

My not liking his style and others I am sure would agree also don't like it. We can't base
his expulsion on these actions. An exception can be made that, delivering false information
at public meetings harming USHPA and its relationship with the City of SD could be a reason
for expulsion. So far the evidence I find does not support this conclusion.

BK presents evidence of 16 accidents involving PG's which is contrary to ACA's published
safety record on their web site. BK seems to own this argument. So much so that he
is being sued for libel for posting 16 Documented News reports at SD City
Council Meetimgs and on his Forum US Hawks.

He believes the most recent deaths were preventable if both USHPA and City of SD had
done their jobs properly..

To fly at Torrey under ACA's own rules PG's must have a P3 with a previous 50 hrs min logged..
BK is publicly recorded stating that in the latest tragic deaths of two PG's, one was a P1 and
one a P3 with less than 50 hrs. Both Rated in FEB 2019 with accident occurring on March 9th.

BK believes that an oversite committee which previously existed or USHPA doing its job properly
or ACA enforcing its own rules would have prevented the original accident/lawsuit he testified in
and the most recent double fatality at Torrey Pines.

How can he be proved wrong?
How can he really lose this current lawsuit filed against him by ACA?

It appears we/USHPA are in trouble again because of negligent practices by ACA.
The City of SD is unhappy about this and on-going unresolved issues BK keeps pointing out.
The flying site is in jepordy with these continuing tdradigies.

BK is in a personal fight with ACA. USHPA and the City of SD has backed ACA until now.
There is enough obvious evidence against ACA that USHPA and City of SD must be very
uncomfortable in their support of ACA.

If not then this will be yet another example of how USHPA has failed us.

Hang Gliding takes another body blow by having to pay out of pocket because of ACA and PG disasters.

We could also lose a flying site because of BK's style in directly blaming City Council Members
for these recent deaths.

Once again the common denominator is ACA's procedures and practices which seem contrary
to published SOP's and common sense..

USHPA needs to be on the right side here.
If it's not, then it has no reason for existence and is a threat to the very sport it claims to promote.
We as members must ensure that USHPA is accountable to our best interests…

This means liabilities and those causing them must be eliminated.


B R