The Bob Show

[NMERider]

....Furthermore, if my testimony was "impeached" then why was the case settled in Shannon's favor?....

My underestimating is as follows:
The case was settled by the insurance company(s) and not by USHPA, Torrey et al.
It was not settled on its merits but instead was settled for nuisance value. Look it up sometime if you don't understand what nuisance value is.
You were not a believable witness (other than in your own mind) because of your well-publicized animosity toward Torrey, et al.
You were not a believable witness because USHPA brought in highly credentialed paragliding experts who did not have an ax to grind with David Jebb, et al.
You were not a believable witness because of your close association with a pilot who is arguably the most anti-paragliding person on planet Earth.

You are not believable even today because several members of your 'club' were USHPA members at the time you were expelled and had unfettered access to the evidence USHPA made available to all of its members and any one of these pilots could have easily cached and archived all of that data.

You are not believable even today because Shannon's case file is public record and a copy of the entire case can be obtained for $40.00 from the San Diego Courthouse where it is stored.

I'm really and truly sorry Bob. As much as I sympathize with many of your sentiments and ideas and your tireless enthusiasm you just can't seem to stop shooting yourself in the foot.
I told you earlier on the SHGA forum that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I dub you the poster child.

Now stop your sulking and go see Blade Runner 2049. You will thank me for this.
Peace, Jonathan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkG4oIPT7tU

[bobk]

The case was settled by the insurance company(s) and not by USHPA, Torrey et al..
...
You were not a believable witness [blah blah blah]

Is that the story USHPA spreads to continue fleecing the membership?

My testimony stood on its own and stands on its own. They had a P0 and a P1 in the air at a site where they require non-students to be halfway between a P3 and a P4.

By definition of USHPA's own rating system, those students didn't have the skills to safely fly that site. So how could they be up there flying?

The answer is that they were relying on the radio communicated judgement and guidance of their instructor(s) who guided them right into each other (actively in one case and passively in the other). Gross negligence. Case closed.

That testimony was never impeached. My testimony wasn't one half of some "he said" "she said" squabble. It was clear, logical, and irrefutable. It didn't matter who said it. The facts stood on their own.

But in case there was any remaining doubt, my actual letter to the chair of USHPA's Safety and Training Committee from 2010 on a very similar incident at that same site would have sealed it. That was hard evidence that had been cc'd to enough people that even Tim Herr couldn't suppress it.

USHPA has sold it's members the hogwash that their cast of amateurs can somehow do a better job in the insurance business than the pros. Tick tock.

Jonathan, you can repeat your "impeachment" claim and there's "a sucker born every minute" who'll believe it. But anyone who takes the time to look into the facts (as they do in a real courtroom, and hopefully a few readers here) will see right through your deception.

Finally, I'm glad we've had this little chat. There have been some friends of mine who've held you in high regard. I appreciate you showing them publicly what I've known for some time. I only regret that I'm not allowed to use your real name here to warn others who might interact with you.

[<BS>]

You are not believable even today because Shannon's case file is public record and a copy of the entire case can be obtained for $40.00 from the San Diego Courthouse where it is stored.

Sounds like a cheap price to shut up one of you.

[bobk]

You are not believable even today because Shannon's case file is public record and a copy of the entire case can be obtained for $40.00 from the San Diego Courthouse where it is stored.

Sounds like a cheap price if it only shuts up one of you.

It is a cheap price, and I'll be following up on it. Thanks.

As for shutting anyone up, it'll be pretty much useless. Jonathan claims to have already seen it, yet he's at a loss to quote or even paraphrase what he considers "impeachable" testimony. You'll notice that hasn't stopped him though.

As for my side, I could post the entire day's worth of video and tell people to spend about 8 hours watching it to verify that I hadn't lied anywhere in there. How many people do you think will actually do that? Maybe Tad. Maybe.

That's why we've evolved a justice system that puts the burden of proof on the accuser. Time, place, and alleged crime are critical elements. USHPA didn't satisfy even those basic elements in their expulsion. Jonathan is just following their bad example. But at least this exercise exposes Jonathan's willingness to make accusations without facts. I'll take that as another small victory for the forces of truth and justice.

[<BS>]

It is a cheap price, and I'll be following up on it. Thanks.

It is a bit odd that you don't already have a copy.

That's why we've evolved a justice system that puts the burden of proof on the accuser. Time, place, and alleged crime are critical elements. USHPA didn't satisfy even those basic elements in their expulsion. Jonathan is just following their bad example. But at least this exercise exposes his willingness to make accusations without facts.

Yep, seems a small price for him too and foremost, to prove his accusations.

[<BS>]

...Jonathan claims to have already seen it...

Where?

[bobk]

It is a bit odd that you don't already have a copy.

It was my first (and still only) time as an expert witness. I was also in the middle of my own "Trial of the Century" restraining order trial from November to March. Expert witnesses are not the client, and I didn't even know about the settlement until long after the fact.

Yep, seems a small price for him too and foremost, to prove his accusations.

Jonathan is well connected within USHPA. He could get (or view) a copy easily enough for free if he wanted. But he claims to have already seen whatever "smoking gun" lead him to his conclusion (during the time that USHPA had it in the "Members Only" section). He just can't seem to recall what it was.

They play a lot of poker at USHPA board meetings. I think it breeds a culture of dishonesty and bluffing.

[<BS>]

By saying "...Jonathan claims to have already seen it...", you inferred he claimed to have seen Shannon's case file. Careful, you don't want "to make accusations without facts".

[bobk]

By saying "...Jonathan claims to have already seen it...", you inferred he claimed to have seen Shannon's case file. Careful, you don't want "to make accusations without facts".

He claims to have seen the material USHPA made available on their web site. I don't know if that was just my testimony, or Shannon's entire case file, or some falsified/doctored version of either.

It was USHPA's job to be sure that I had access to that information. In a real court, USHPA's lawyer would have been called on the carpet by the judge for not making sure they'd been properly delivered - by courier if needed - before the trial date. But in USHPA's court, USHPA was the judge. Convictions are so much easier when the judge and the prosecutor are the same.

[bobk]

Well, I'm glad to have livened up your forum for a bit.

Jonathan has made some claims about my testimony that he can't seem to back up. The best he can come up with is that I had a bias while somehow glossing over the [sarcasm]unbiased[/sarcasm] testimony of Dennis Pagan and Marty Divietti. I guess they were impeached as well by Jonathan's own standards.

I would like to see Jonathan called on his B.S. here, but I won't hold my breath. I can take some satisfaction, however, in being able to point to this topic as part of the Jonathan Deetch Flow on the U.S. Hawks.

Thanks.