normiss 615 #1826 March 13, 2017 I would expect 0 and 2 are not a good record to get a case heard at that level, send it back down! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,329 #1827 March 13, 2017 normissI would expect 0 and 2 are not a good record to get a case heard at that level, send it back down! Nothing controversial, no conflicting case law, not even any dissents at the appellate level. "I don't like the ruling" is not a valid reason for a State Supreme Court to hear a case. I'd really like the SC to return it with a "don't waste our time with this" sort of response, but it's most likely going to be a simple refusal with no reasons given."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 99 #1828 March 13, 2017 skyjumpenfool I've got a nice crispy new twenty dollar bill that says The CO Supreme Court doesn't even take this case. I just hope for Mile High's sake, the Fat Lady is warming up.... So......if the SC does take the case, are you going to give the 20 to CQS? My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyjumpenfool 2 #1829 March 14, 2017 Are you taking this bet? I'll gladly send it to Mile High. Birdshit & Fools Productions "Son, only two things fall from the sky." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 99 #1830 March 14, 2017 skyjumpenfool Are you taking this bet? I'll gladly send it to Mile High. I only bet when winning is certain...... But, if you are certain, you'd pledge the 20 to Kimmy. After all, where's the risk if you're never gonna have to pay her out? My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,362 #1831 March 15, 2017 Times-Call Editorial: Respect needed in Longmont skydiving noise battle http://www.timescall.com/opinion/editorial/ci_30854751/respect-needed-longmont-skydiving-noise-battle"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #1832 March 15, 2017 "Even in winning, the company should seriously consider investing further in its planes to equip them in such a way that they would make less noise. Other than drastically reducing the number of flights and jumps, this is the one concrete suggestion that has been made for possibly improving the situation." Yes maybe they can swap out the turbine engines for ION drives. The author had a pretty reasonable stance up until that point. "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
ryoder 1,362 #1833 March 15, 2017 DougH "Even in winning, the company should seriously consider investing further in its planes to equip them in such a way that they would make less noise. Other than drastically reducing the number of flights and jumps, this is the one concrete suggestion that has been made for possibly improving the situation." Yes maybe they can swap out the turbine engines for ION drives. The author had a pretty reasonable stance up until that point. Sounds like the author got sucked into a Gibb's argument. One of her (many) demands was that all the turbo-prop a/c must be equipped with 4-blade props, and not 3-blade props. I'm guessing she got this from marketing materials from companies wanting to sell 4-blade prop conversions. (They also claim fuel savings). I don't know whether a 4-blade prop really makes that much difference in noise, nor do I know whether it is even a viable option for the specific a/c MHS owns."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nolhtairt 0 #1834 March 15, 2017 ryoderTimes-Call Editorial: Respect needed in Longmont skydiving noise battle http://www.timescall.com/opinion/editorial/ci_30854751/respect-needed-longmont-skydiving-noise-battle Respect will be given when it is earned. Fuck that hag. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyjumpenfool 2 #1835 March 16, 2017 DougH The author had a pretty reasonable stance up until that point. That was my thought exactly. This is probably the most well written, even keeled, unbiased thing I've seen in that rag..... until that point. All the author had to do is include what CFQS's should do to help mend fences. .....like, pay up and shut up!!Birdshit & Fools Productions "Son, only two things fall from the sky." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlyingRhenquest 1 #1836 March 16, 2017 ryoder Sounds like the author got sucked into a Gibb's argument. One of her (many) demands was that all the turbo-prop a/c must be equipped with 4-blade props, and not 3-blade props. I'm guessing she got this from marketing materials from companies wanting to sell 4-blade prop conversions. (They also claim fuel savings). I don't know whether a 4-blade prop really makes that much difference in noise, nor do I know whether it is even a viable option for the specific a/c MHS owns. As I recall, some company makes a prop conversion for otters, but it's either not for the otter Mile Hi is flying, or the FAA hasn't approved it for the otter Mile Hi is flying. They haven't flown the otter for the past couple of months anyway, for unspecified reasons. As I recall, something like 70% of the traffic from that airport is as loud as or louder than the otter. Several stunt fliers fly out of there, and there are a couple of other planes (Including a jet or two) that regularly go over my house that are much louder. Getting rid of the dropzone won't end the complaints about noise at the airport, it'll just get rid of an important economic driver in Longmont.I'm trying to teach myself how to set things on fire with my mind. Hey... is it hot in here? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,362 #1837 March 26, 2017 ryoder Petition for Certiorari to the Colorado Supreme Court, dated 2017-03-02: http://citizensforquietskies.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Petition-for-Certiorari-3.2.17.pdf 20170322 Mile-Hi Opposition to Cert: http://citizensforquietskies.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/20170322-Mile-Hi-Opposition-to-Cert.pdf 20170323 CQS Reply in Support of Cert Petition (final): http://citizensforquietskies.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/20170323-CQS-Reply-in-Support-of-Cert-Petition-final.pdf"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #1838 March 26, 2017 Great.... I read both and still don't really understand. In layman terms is this the argument for why CQS shouldn't have to pay - or is this heading to another appeal?Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,329 #1839 March 26, 2017 mirage62Great.... I read both and still don't really understand. In layman terms is this the argument for why CQS shouldn't have to pay - or is this heading to another appeal? In layman's terms*, it's a pretty good indication that CQS and those that run it are no longer fully in contact with "reality." And are likely going to have to pay more of Mile Hi's attorney fees. In very simple terms, an appeal has to correct errors from the original trial. That's it. It's not a new trial, although an appeals court can order a new trial. No new evidence, no new arguments, nothing like that. CQS has to show where the original judge either did something she shouldn't have, or didn't do something she should have. And the would have had to have objected during trial and had those objections overruled. During the trial, the judge basically bent over backwards to accommodate CQS. She did things that, had CQS won, Mile Hi could have likely won appeals on. I was a bit disturbed by her rulings and decisions during the trial. It looked almost like she was unfairly favoring CQS. When she ruled that every single one of CQS's claims was without merit, it then looked like she chose to give CQS every break, so that the ruling against them would have a better chance of holding up under appeal. And if that was her intention, it worked. NONE of the points CQS tried to appeal were validated. The appeals court pretty much said "No." The one issue sent back was a 'technicality', and was part of the ruling about Mile Hi's attorney fees, not the main case. Every aspect of the main case that the judge found was upheld on appeal. Mile Hi's petition basically says that CQS's appeal is crap. They are trying to introduce new evidence, invalid evidence (journalists aren't legislators or judges) and are simply drawing this process out as long as possible. Perhaps because they can't stand losing, perhaps because they want to bleed Mile Hi for as much money as possible. In any case, the appeal is not likely to be heard by the Supreme Court. There's not really any reason for them to hear it. And Mile Hi is likely to be awarded more attorney fees for the "frivolous" appeal. *Note* - I'm not an attorney, and if one of the folks on here who is (DPREguy for one) says I'm wrong about part of this, then it's likely that I am. But this is my understanding of it."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,362 #1840 March 29, 2017 "We will keep beating the dead horse": http://www.timescall.com/columnists/opinion-local/ci_30884333/kimberly-gibbs-why-quiet-skies-wont-give-up"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #1841 March 29, 2017 If she loses the right to appeal at the SC - will she have to start paying?Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nolhtairt 0 #1842 March 29, 2017 ryoder "We will keep beating the dead horse": http://www.timescall.com/columnists/opinion-local/ci_30884333/kimberly-gibbs-why-quiet-skies-wont-give-up What she needs is an erection in her mouth just to shut her the hell up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 253 #1843 March 29, 2017 This sentence gave me a WTF moment: "Ongoing delay tactics only serve to ratchet up the stakes and further erode public support for aviation. " WTF? Delay tactics? I'm sure Mile Hi would like this settled as soon as possible!Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tonyhays 86 #1844 March 29, 2017 QuoteOngoing delay tactics only serve to ratchet up the stakes and further erode public support for aviation. She's clearly delusional“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #1845 May 2, 2017 I think I have a problem....the only reason I come to Dz.com regularly is to look for an update on this thread. Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,090 #1846 May 2, 2017 Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trafficdiver 8 #1847 May 2, 2017 It's like watching a train wreck that lasts for years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boomerdog 0 #1848 May 23, 2017 QuoteI've got a nice crispy new twenty dollar bill that says The CO Supreme Court doesn't even take this case. I just hope for Mile High's sake, the Fat Lady is warming up.... No matter. If the CO Supreme Court does not take the case, she goes to a Federal Lawsuit. If the CO Supreme Court takes the case and rules against her, she'll still "take it federal." Some people just have to piss on the electric fence and once is enough. And then there are some people who piss on it constantly in order to disable the fence in spite of sustaining the incessant shocks. Oh well..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 253 #1849 May 23, 2017 Boomerdog No matter. If the CO Supreme Court does not take the case, she goes to a Federal Lawsuit. If the CO Supreme Court takes the case and rules against her, she'll still "take it federal." Would she not need some quite significant funding for this? Is there no calling time on her for wasting other people's time and money?Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trafficdiver 8 #1850 May 23, 2017 I've said this before in this thread and I'll say it again. This is not about her being bothered by an airplane. This is about a leftist using the government to destroy a legitimate business. Her and all of her supporters are far left wing activists. This is really a fight about free market capitalism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites