BillyVance 34 #26 June 10, 2008 Quote I don't know what all happened, dont even know what skyride is.... You could do a search and find plenty of info with "skyride". Basically, they're a very aggressive booking agency using unscrupulous, unethical and illegal tactics to get your credit card # for a gift certificate, and hope that you are gullible enough to fall for them. "Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #27 June 10, 2008 >Wish I could elaborate . . . How about a simpler question, then. If given the same opportunity (i.e. a USPA lawsuit against an entity you dislike) will you take the same sort of actions you took last time? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #28 June 10, 2008 May 2008 Parachutist, USPA defeats FAA action to make all Twin Otters, Skyvans fly skydivers under Part 125 instead of Part 91. Saving DZO's (and ultimately you) hundreds and probably thousands of dollars over the years. sounds like a good deal fro $49/year - quickyerbitchin'........ we fought Skyride - and lost. Maybe you should blame the legal system instead of USPA. Obviously skyride are crooks, obviously it is not right that they can get away with that, but apparently the legal system lets them. write your government, better yet, file your own lawsuit against Skyride if you think it is so damn simply to beat.... TK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Duckwater 0 #29 June 10, 2008 QuoteMay 2008 Parachutist, USPA defeats FAA action to make all Twin Otters, Skyvans fly skydivers under Part 125 instead of Part 91. Saving DZO's (and ultimately you) hundreds and probably thousands of dollars over the years. I never heard of this one. People unfamiliar with FAR's might not understand what a big deal this was. Had this passed, it would have been a few nails in the coffin at least. Whoever had a hand in defeating this in the USPA saved skydiving. SKYRIDE wont kill skydiving, not paying your dues will Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #30 June 10, 2008 QuoteMay 2008 Parachutist, USPA defeats FAA action to make all Twin Otters, Skyvans fly skydivers under Part 125 instead of Part 91. Saving DZO's (and ultimately you) hundreds and probably thousands of dollars over the years. Very happy for those that have twin otters and skyvans. How much was spent defending this on behalf of the DZO's that own and operate twin otters and skyvan's. The USPA is always willing to do what's right/helpful for the DZO's but not the individual membership. jBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peek 21 #31 June 10, 2008 Quote... Jan Meyer's extracurricular activities (among other things) led to Skyride filing and winning a countersuit against USPA. Bill, you don't know what you are talking about. Stop using your position as a moderator of dropzone.com to influence people's opinion of Jan (whether you mean to or not.) I have asked you in the past to be more accurate in your postings. I ask you again to please do so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Duckwater 0 #32 June 10, 2008 Quote How much was spent defending this on behalf of the DZO's that own and operate twin otters and skyvan's. The USPA is always willing to do what's right/helpful for the DZO's but not the individual membership. Being that the majority of skydivers jump at turbine DZ's, isn't the fact that the USPA helped keep the planes flying without unneeded cost and regulation beneficial to individuals? And, Cessnas were not in the proposed action by the FAA, hence no need to defend. Im sure the USPA would act if need be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #33 June 10, 2008 not true - I was actually unaware of it and would have defnitely been involved if I had been aware of it. Is that USPA's fault? Perhaps, but bottom line is just because USPA did not say any DZO's were or were not involved, does not mean that no DZO's aircraft operators were not involved. I expect they were. either way, saving the DZO a dollar, or in this case PREVENTING AN INCREASE IN YOUR JUMP PRICE, is surely a good thing for skydivers and skydiving. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #34 June 10, 2008 >I have asked you in the past to be more accurate in your postings. I ask >you again to please do so. I'd be happy to, and have asked Jan several times her take on what she did in the past. Once she answers me I will, no doubt, be better informed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chaoskitty 0 #35 June 10, 2008 Our USPA Executive Committee has instructed her not to speak of it in any regard. See her avatar. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crashtested 0 #36 June 10, 2008 I don't know much about skyride, only that a lot of people in the us have the opinion that they are a bunch of cunts.... couple of questions 1.Why in gods name does any dropzone still have dealings with this company. 2.If it is a financhel reason than skyride must be giving somthing to some dz's in some places, are they completly bad in tht case? 3.If they do not really offer a good financhel incentive, and are not good to the image of the sport, than would it not be better to campaign to the skydivers to stop using the local dropzones untill the dz owners stop using Skyride as a means of booking tandems etc... As a point i think it is bullshit that Jan has lost her freedom of speech through this process, shame on you law courts of america.....and a bit of the uspa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MakeItHappen 15 #37 June 10, 2008 Quote>I have asked you in the past to be more accurate in your postings. I ask >you again to please do so. I'd be happy to, and have asked Jan several times her take on what she did in the past. Once she answers me I will, no doubt, be better informed. Bill, you have made false accusations against me. I never made any false allegations against anyone and submitted over 1200 pages of documentation in my deposition for the SDA v. SR case. BTW, I was deposed by both sides. That is another story. IOW, Bill, you don’t have a clue about this. If you knew what I know, your opinion on the entire matter would be very different. For more detailed information, see avatar. .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MakeItHappen 15 #38 June 10, 2008 QuoteAs a point i think it is bullshit that Jan has lost her freedom of speech through this process, shame on you law courts of america.....and a bit of the uspa You have it backwards. USPA put the gag in place, not the courts. .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #39 June 10, 2008 QuotePost: In Reply To Also don;t forget that Mr. Welkers posts on here were quoted in the case and marked as the SRD statements, when in fact at the time of his post he was NOT elected yet. ----------------------------------------------------------- The original complaint also quoted a post by Todd Spillers and attributed it to Chris Welker, not to mention out of context quotes from me. Took me a while to find it, but here is Mr. Welkers post. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3085929#3085929you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #40 June 10, 2008 A better solution is that any time you're about to go visit a dropzone find out if they use skyride. If they do then call them and tell them you're not going to use them because of this."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crashtested 0 #41 June 10, 2008 My condolences than Jan...must feel like even more of an ass rape....... what a bunch of twats!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #42 June 10, 2008 Quote 2.If it is a financhel reason than skyride must be giving somthing to some dz's in some places, are they completly bad in tht case? Skyride is like heading off a customer before they walk into a store they were already heading for, walking them up to the manager, and then demanding a comission on the sale. They steal customers who are already searching on the web for dropzones in their local area, and trick them with deceptive and often straight up fake websites. These customers would have found legit websites if they weren't diverted away by skyrides fake websites and larger google ads budgets. It is all passive advertising, they don't drum up any business that wasn't already going to find you. If skyride had a national tv and print advertising campaign, stop lying and cheating customers, stopped being deceptive thiefs, then they could offer some benefit to the sport. In their current form they are a cancer. DZO's accept skyride because they are greedy scumbags, plane and simple. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #43 June 10, 2008 QuoteThat is indeed PART of what killed USPA's chances of defending itself. What killed USPA’s chances of defending itself is that USPA put itself in a non-defensible position by confusing their mission. They are not there to defend DSO’s against other businesses but to act in the best interest of the individual membership. They have tried to turn USPA into a trade organization and have forgotten that USPA is a private club originally started for the benefit of the members. DZO’s should not be allowed to hold positions on the board. It is at best a conflict of interest. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #44 June 10, 2008 I sure Glenduh showing up to one of their DZ's and running his mouth was a big help, but then again we all know that was Jan's fault too.you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #45 June 10, 2008 >Bill, you have made false accusations against me. One simple question, then. I assume you recall posting that parody about Skyride. If you are re-elected, and another such issue arises - will you refrain from posting similar parodies? A yes or no would suffice; no confidential info required. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos340 1 #46 June 11, 2008 Her posts have absolutely NOTHING to do with why the USPA settled. READ THE COURT DOCUMENTS. I am Attaching the the only real ruling that was made in this case. Here are the highlights: Ruling on Count one (Alleged Violation of Section One of the Sherman Act): From Page 22: QuoteThe alleged effort by the USPA and certain group members to band together to protect the commercial position of entrenched non-Skyride network USPA group member drop zones is of the type and nature required to establish injury to competition sufficient to sustain an antitrust claim . Conclusion: QuotePlaintiffs have sufficiently alleged an antitrust injury to maintain their Section One claim. ....... Please NOTE… NOTHING to do with Jans Posts. Every thing to do with what I posted earlier. ....... Ruling on Counts Two and Three (Alleged Violations of Section Two of the Sherman Act).. Dismissed. Ruling on Count Four: QuotePlaintiffs have alleged facts, that if proven, could demonstrate that the USPA solicited Plaintiffs' employees with malice and with a purpose to drive Plaintiffs out of business. Additionally, as the Court has already found, Plaintiffs have stated a claim under Section One of the Sherman Act, a federal statute pertaining to the restraint of trade and unfair competition . Quote Under these circumstances, dismissal of Plaintiffs' tortious interference claim would be inappropriate. Ruling on Count Five: QuoteIn count five, Plaintiffs (with the exception of Skyride because it has never been a USPA member) contend that Defendant breached several provisions of the USPA governance manual in disciplining them and terminating their memberships . QuoteThe governance manual sets forth the terms of the relationship between the USPA and its members, and the USPA has not shown as a matter of law that the governance manual is not a contract. With the benefit of discovery, Plaintiffs may be able to prove facts to support their argument that the governance manual is in fact a contract . For example, the membership agreements signed by Plaintiffs may incorporate the governance manual by reference or may otherwise indicate that the governance manual is to be viewed as a binding contract. For all of these reasons, it would be inappropriate to dismiss Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim at this time. QuoteThe Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that ASC, CASC, and Tandora have suffered no damages. Plaintiffs may attempt to show that the group members have suffered damages by virtue of the fact that the individual members were banned for life, and these individuals operate ASC, CASC, and Tandora. For these reasons, the Court denies Defendant's motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim. Count Six (Self-Dealing) and Count Seven (Breach of Legal Duty): Dismissed. Ruling on Count Eight (Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: QuoteIn count eight, Plaintiffs allege that the USPA breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing and acted in bad faith by not following certain provisions of the governance manual. QuoteThe Court disagrees. In paragraphs seventy-one through eighty-three of the complaint, Plaintiffs point to several provisions of the governance manual that they contend were breached by the USPA. Accepting the facts pleaded in the complaint as true, and construing them in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, these allegations are sufficient to sustain a claim against Defendant for a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. So PLEASE… tell me where.. ANYWHERE.. How ANY post that Jan or anyone else ever made had any relevance to this case at all? It is my opinion that is a load of horse shit that those in charge of this debacle want everyone to believe. There is NOTHING anywhere in this ruling that would reasonably indicate that ANY internet posts had any bearing or relevance to this case at all. The USPA was Screwed because they didn’t follow their own Rules, They allowed themsevelves to look like a trade organization and the DZO`s and DZ Manager Board Members had a clear conflict of interest. Note: I am NOT a Lawyer but I have been through similar cases in federal court and successfully represented/defended myself pre se. These are my opinions based on reading the publicly available documents in this case. I have tried to attach the complete Ruling but it is too large. I will gladly email it to anyone that wants a copy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MakeItHappen 15 #47 June 11, 2008 Quote>Bill, you have made false accusations against me. One simple question, then. I assume you recall posting that parody about Skyride. If you are re-elected, and another such issue arises - will you refrain from posting similar parodies? A yes or no would suffice; no confidential info required. Another such issue has arisen. I wake up each day now and have a conversation among ‘Me’, ‘Myself’ and ‘I’. Here is how it goes: Me: Jan, this is publicly available information. You should inform the membership. Myself: Jan, HQ told you not to say anything about it. I: Jan, I can’t live with you anymore. I want a divorce. Me: Truffer will eventually pick up on it. Myself: That’s BS. Truffer doesn’t know jack unless someone calls him and tells him. I: Have I become a besotted version of my former self? .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #48 June 11, 2008 Actually I'm not asking you to reveal any non-public information. Your previous parody post is public knowledge. If you find yourself in a similar situation, would you post something similar? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MakeItHappen 15 #49 June 11, 2008 QuoteActually I'm not asking you to reveal any non-public information. Your previous parody post is public knowledge. If you find yourself in a similar situation, would you post something similar? Please see avatar for anything that is not clear. .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydived19006 4 #50 June 11, 2008 Quote Me: Jan, this is publicly available information... Is there anyone in the house (other than Jan Meyer) with the knowledge/ability to find this "publicly available information", and post it? Maybe we don't really want to have this information? Why ruin the fun and screw up a perfectly good argument with facts? MartinExperience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
