0
stratostar

Longmont City Council will take up skydiving noise

Recommended Posts

skyjumpenfool

***Would that qualify as a "Blow Job"? ;)



Hmmm? If Miss Kimmy had a hobby like that, this whole mess would never have started.

You are 100%. If Miss Kimmy had a hobby like that, this whole mess would have never happened. :| <-That Serious face means that this is no longer a joke, this could have prevented the whole situation.

Anybody want to go offer themselves as a sacrifice?
=========Shaun ==========


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unstable

******Would that qualify as a "Blow Job"? ;)



Hmmm? If Miss Kimmy had a hobby like that, this whole mess would never have started.

You are 100%. If Miss Kimmy had a hobby like that, this whole mess would have never happened. :| <-That Serious face means that this is no longer a joke, this could have prevented the whole situation.

Anybody want to go offer themselves as a sacrifice?

Yeah, what the hell, as long as she's got a paper bag over her face. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.timescall.com/longmont-local-news/ci_28466999/airplane-noise-plaintiffs-file-appeal-longmont-based-suit

Quote


Although Boulder District Court Judge Judith LaBuda wished for both sides to move on, local organization Citizens for Quiet Skies has filed an appeal of its lost lawsuit against Mile-Hi Skydiving.

Citizens for Quiet Skies, Gunbarrel resident Kimberly Gibbs and the five other original individual plaintiffs filed requests to the Colorado Court of Appeals on Thursday to review the case that was closed in May.

The plaintiffs sued Mile-Hi Skydiving and its owner, Frank Casares, claiming that Casares was being negligent and a nuisance by flying what they said were unusually loud planes too frequently over homes in southwest Longmont and unincorporated Boulder County.

LaBuda ruled unilaterally in favor of Mile-Hi, concluding in her judgment that the Federal Aviation Administration rules regarding noise supersede local regulations.

LaBuda also concluded that Gibbs "is more sensitive to the noise produced by Mile-Hi's operations than the average community member who resides in the (Mile-Hi) flight box."


LaBuda also wrote in her judgment that while people may find the sounds of motorcycles, trucks, lawn mowers or children's yells irritating, irritating a small group of people is not the same as being annoying enough to register with "a normal person in the community."

LaBuda expressed her hope that both sides and the community at large would move on after the lawsuit, which included a week-long trial and a site visit to two plaintiff homes while Mile-Hi pilots flew overhead.

But Gibbs said she found the comments about the children yelling and lawnmowers "insulting" and feels that LaBuda "misapplied the law."

"From the beginning I had a pretty strong commitment to see this through to the end," Gibbs said.

LaBuda's order requiring the plaintiffs to pay Mile-Hi $67,000 in damages out of a requested $85,000 was another reason Gibbs wanted to appeal the decision.

"It really ups the ante for me, because we feel it's a punitive statement and a punitive award ... so for me personally, that's going to fall on my shoulders and that was definitely a strong factor in my decision-making process."

Casares said in a statement shared via his spokesman, Russ Rizzo: "We are confident in our legal position. Our focus remains on running a successful business that contributes to the local economy while continuing our commitment to being a good neighbor."


Skydiving Fatalities - Cease not to learn 'til thou cease to live

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cpoxon


LaBuda's order requiring the plaintiffs to pay Mile-Hi $67,000 in damages out of a requested $85,000 was another reason Gibbs wanted to appeal the decision.



I just found this: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/20th_Judicial_District/Cases_of_Interest/Gibbs%20v%20Mile%20Hi%20Skydiving/2013CV31563%20Order%20Re%20Defendants%20Bill%20of%20Costs.pdf

"The Court therefore awards the Defendant total costs of $67,791.05 in costs, which shall be tendered to Defendant in good funds within 30 days of this Order. Plaintiffs Citizens for Quiet Skies, Inc., Kimberly Gibbs, Timothy Lim, Robert Yates, Suzanne Webel, John Behrens, Carla Behrens, and Richard Dauer, shall be jointly and severally liable for said costs."

Interesting; So the group of plaintiffs are jointly liable, and have a deadline of July 24 to pay up.
So I'm guessing the appeal puts this on hold?

BTW I looked up the term "joint and several liability":

Joint and several liability is a form of liability that is used in civil cases where two or more people are found liable for damages. The winning plaintiff in such a case may collect the entire judgment from any one of the parties, or from any and all of the parties in various amounts until the judgment is paid in full. In other words, if any of the defendants do not have enough money or assets to pay an equal share of the award, the other defendants must make up the difference.

Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Jointly+and+severally+liable
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huh, I missed that bit somehow. Can Mile Hi also file an appeal and ask for the full $85 grand since CQS filed an appeal? After all, they've got to dust the lawer off again, and he'd just barely started accumulating dust.
I'm trying to teach myself how to set things on fire with my mind. Hey... is it hot in here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi ryoder,

Quote

So I'm guessing the appeal puts this on hold?



From my personal experience here in Oregon, it does not. Also the judgement here will draw interest.

My experience is only in Small Claims Court. Maybe one or two of our attorneys on here can offer a better comment.

Jerry Baumchen

PS) I once collected from a defendant who refused to pay. I then garnished their bank account via sending the sheriff out with a court order demanding the funds, and they filed some type of appeal. I had to return the funds to the court, we had another hearing, she lost & I got my money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, judgments draw interest. Statutory rate of (used to be ) 9%. Don't know what it is now.

After the 30 days allowed by the judge, a lien may be placed on unpaid judgment debtors' real estate holdings for the amount owed; and if the creditor take the trouble to do so, (more legal work) the lien may be increased periodically as the interest accrues ... forever. If it is homestead property, it just sits there and waits until the property is sold or transferred by probate.

If the liened real estate is not a homestead, a procedure may be instituted for a forced sale to recover the debt. Complicated, difficult, expensive, etc, but is available. And the costs of such collection are usually borne by the debtor.
(Example: in a foreclosure on a mortgage on non- homestead property, the cost of the foreclosure is added to the amount recovered)

Because there are so many statutory penalties and creditors' remedies to get debts paid, tactics to delay the inevitable are kinda just desperate measures, and usually just add to the final amount paid. And, creditors can "sell their papers", for a substantial discount, to professional debt collection companies. Those guys are ruthless and they know their stuff! Try missing a car payment when the papers you signed at the car dealership are sold to professional debt collection company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In many states a party has to post either a bond or collateral in roughly the amount of the judgment against them in order to appeal. Don't know about Colo, and I'm on my phone now so I'm not gonna look it up.

Plus I'm at party now & the wife is giving me the stink eye for being on dz.com now.B|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi ryoder,

Quote

I once collected from a defendant who refused to pay. I then garnished their bank account via sending the sheriff out with a court order demanding the funds, and they filed some type of appeal.



Let me clarify this as ( now when I read it, it does not make any sense ):

"I once collected 10% from a defendant who refused to pay the rest of the judgement. When I got the check I called their bank and found out that they had sufficient funds for the entire amount. I then garnished their bank account via sending the sheriff out with a court order demanding the funds . . . "

When it was all over I also got my costs for sending the sheriff out.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cpoxon


LaBuda's order requiring the plaintiffs to pay Mile-Hi $67,000 in damages out of a requested $85,000 was another reason Gibbs wanted to appeal the decision.



Wow. I hadn't seen that before.

Right after the ruling, someone (Unstable?) asked why Kim & her friends couldn't keep filing lawsuits under different names and in different courts to keep after Mile Hi and bankrupt them.

There were (and are) a variety of different reasons that wasn't going to happen anyway, but here is just under seventy thousand reasons why not.

Because when someone files a frivolous lawsuit, and makes the defendant pay a bunch of money to defend themselves, then the judge can make the plaintiff pay those costs, especially when the ruling is unanimously against the plaintiff.

I said it before, but I really don't see an appeal going anywhere. I thought the judge was being very lenient towards the plaintiffs, refusing to allow the study done by the airport, allowing the site visit, ect.

That all makes a lot more sense now. The judge made damned sure that there weren't going to be any avenues for the plaintiffs to appeal.
The primary case was the "nuisance level" of the noise. Everything else hinged on that.
The study done by the airport, while accurate, might have been "appealable" because the airport manager had shown clear favor towards Mile Hi. Having an independent survey done removes that. Kim can't claim that the study "wasn't fair" because the airport manager was against her.

Similarly, the site visit seemed to be unnecessary. Both studies agreed that the noise level was barely above the ambient noise level. But by going out there and seeing it "in person" (the court really isn't a person, but you know what I mean), Kim couldn't claim that the studies didn't reflect the reality of the situation (of course, she claims that the plane "flew differently" that day).

Combine that with Kim's own video where she has to whisper to keep from drowning out the plane with her narrative, and the "nuisance level" of the noise is clearly not met.

So Kim is simply going to spend more money, perhaps making Mile Hi spend more money that she should hopefully have to reimburse, to find out that an appeal because "I didn't like the ruling" won't go anywhere.
"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe


Because when someone files a frivolous lawsuit, and makes the defendant pay a bunch of money to defend themselves, then the judge can make the plaintiff pay those costs, especially when the ruling is unanimously against the plaintiff.



Look over the court ruling I linked to. Notice that attorney's fees are not in there. The $67,000 is just reimbursement for court fees and hiring expert witnesses. That is a drop in the bucket compared to what they actual spent for legal defense.
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From her Facebook page:

Quote

FILING THE APPEAL
The Appeal is Real.
In the court's Final Order, judge Judith LaBuda wrote:
"It is the Court’s hope that following a week-long trial, in which both parties were given an opportunity to present their evidence, that the parties, as well as the community members, will accept the ruling of the Court and move forward in a manner that demonstrates courtesy, respect, and consideration for one another. "
What she really meant was, "You people have been heard. Now go home and give it up."
If judge LaBuda were truly interested in helping both sides to accept the ruling and "move forward", she would have evaluated all of the evidence fairly and delivered a ruling that would provide some measure of relief to the community. At a minimum, she would have acknowledged the serious noise impact created by the skydiving jump planes. But instead, she concluded that we were all just overly sensitive to the noise. If that's true, then why did Mile-Hi make such an effort to be unusually quiet during the site visit flights? Why did the judge turn a blind eye to Mile-Hi's blatant shenanigans, refusing to even consider that Mile-Hi flew all the way to Lyons in order to avoid the site visit location. Their modified patterns were obvious to everyone who paid attention, but not judge LaBuda. And why, if there is no noise problem, did Mile-Hi spend so much effort to deceive the judge throughout the trial and in their Proposed Finding of Fact. For example, is the 65 DNL a "federal noise limit?" Well no, it is not. And if the judge had been paying attention, she would have easily been able to sort that out.
The court's ruling was disappointing, but judge LaBuda's award to Mile-Hi on "costs" - $67,000 out of the $85,000 they were seeking - was completely outrageous and clearly intended to punish the plaintiffs.
So, a difficult lesson was learned: Ordinary citizens need not bother seeking justice at the Boulder County District Court - there is none to be found there for you.
We move on with the appeal.



I'm curious as to why she thinks the 65 DNL is not the standard all the sudden. Especially after this meeting was held....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=MsmnZ7ws1ac&app=desktop
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryoder

***
Because when someone files a frivolous lawsuit, and makes the defendant pay a bunch of money to defend themselves, then the judge can make the plaintiff pay those costs, especially when the ruling is unanimously against the plaintiff.



Look over the court ruling I linked to. Notice that attorney's fees are not in there. The $67,000 is just reimbursement for court fees and hiring expert witnesses. That is a drop in the bucket compared to what they actual spent for legal defense.

Well, perhaps I should have said "make the plaintiff pay some of those costs."

I saw that attorney's costs weren't addressed.

Too bad those aren't.

But it doesn't change the fact that Kim owes Mile Hi $67,000.
"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From the CQS FB page:
Quote

FUNDRAISING FOR THE APPEAL
The cost for the appeal is $25,000. I'm sure by now everyone understands the financial burden that this lawsuit has created. I will find a way to pay for the awarded costs, but we need help from our supporters to pay for this appeal. Many of you have already pledged a generous contribution of $500 or even $1,000, thank you so much. We could not do this without your ongoing support. We need to collect these pledges and raise several thousand more dollars, so please consider making a donation to this effort. We need to pay the legal team on Aug. 1.
If you would like to make a donation to the legal fund, please visit our website and click the Donate button in the bottom right corner.


"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It's just hilarious how much time she spends wasting her life on this.




It's amazing to me too. Sounds like the Judge did everything in proper decorum to tell her to move on and bring peace to both sides. But Kimmy took 'offense' (in her words, and funny how people like her take 'offense' to anything that does not go their way) to the fact the judge did not rule in her favor.
At some point this is going to have to end, but that point has not yet come.
=========Shaun ==========


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In all fairness Kim must be good at raising money and it seems that all of the defendants join her in the appeal. By awarding damages (cost) the judge gave Kim a great tool to continue her "cause".

If I lived in this town I would be sick of the continued legal expenses that Kim is fostering on the local tax payers. It APPEARS that only a very few people are upset - but that group really supports Kim.

Sad
Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If I lived in this town I would be sick of the continued legal expenses that Kim is fostering on the local tax payers.



True it's frustrating but everyone who thinks they "have a case" (with the assumption that a lawyer tells the client they have a case) is entitled to their day in court.

Sadly, and this is no criticism of Ms. Gibbs. After reading the FB page and watching the post-trial video a couple of times (I've questioned myself about the time investment), I get the distinct impression that Ms Gibbs and her followers are ingrained and invested in victimhood ready to take on any and all forces and irritants of any magnitude that they believe impinges on their lives. She sought relief in her legal recourse of the Court and lost. She will not and never will take no for an answer and will not rest until the rest of the world not only agrees with her but believes the same way she believes. At some point, the DZO (on the advice of counsel) just may have to bring one very massive legal counter suit down on her that finally convinces her and her following that further legal action is not only futile, there will be massive economic destruction resulting from continuing their efforts against MHS. Criticize? No. Pity? No. I don't know what to call it other than not good. And the beat goes on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

, I get the distinct impression that Ms Gibbs and her followers are ingrained and invested in victimhood ready to take on any and all forces and irritants of any magnitude that they believe impinges on their lives.



I think you hit the nail on the head. That sentence up there pretty much sums up the last 49+ pages of this thread. Kimmy, and other like her, endow themselves with the mantle of victimhood, real or perceived, and fight until the end. In this case, her victimhood is a manifestation of her disconnect from reality.
=========Shaun ==========


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to wonder whether Kim's and her compadres' attorneys advised them, in advance, and in writing: "if you take this to trial and lose, you're likely to get hit with having to pay their costs, probably in the range of at least $XXXXX." For those attorneys' sake, they better have.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy9o8

I have to wonder whether Kim's and her compadres' attorneys advised them, in advance, and in writing: "if you take this to trial and lose, you're likely to get hit with having to pay their costs, probably in the range of at least $XXXXX." For those attorneys' sake, they better have.

:)



It came up in trial that Gibbs was telling potential plaintiffs her lawyers would draw up an agreement that Gibbs would cover any potential payouts in case of a loss, and Gibbs attorneys immediately objected to that line of questioning.
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

FILING THE APPEAL
The Appeal is Real.
In the court's Final Order, judge Judith LaBuda wrote:
"It is the Court’s hope that following a week-long trial, in which both parties were given an opportunity to present their evidence, that the parties, as well as the community members, will accept the ruling of the Court and move forward in a manner that demonstrates courtesy, respect, and consideration for one another. "
What she really meant was, "You people have been heard. Now go home and give it up."
If judge LaBuda were truly interested in helping both sides to accept the ruling and "move forward", she would have evaluated all of the evidence fairly and delivered a ruling that would provide some measure of relief to the community. At a minimum, she would have acknowledged the serious noise impact created by the skydiving jump planes. But instead, she concluded that we were all just overly sensitive to the noise. If that's true, then why did Mile-Hi make such an effort to be unusually quiet during the site visit flights? Why did the judge turn a blind eye to Mile-Hi's blatant shenanigans, refusing to even consider that Mile-Hi flew all the way to Lyons in order to avoid the site visit location. Their modified patterns were obvious to everyone who paid attention, but not judge LaBuda. And why, if there is no noise problem, did Mile-Hi spend so much effort to deceive the judge throughout the trial and in their Proposed Finding of Fact.



These are all findings of fact by the trial court, it appears, and so not at all likely to be reconsidered on appeal.

Quote

For example, is the 65 DNL a "federal noise limit?" Well no, it is not. And if the judge had been paying attention, she would have easily been able to sort that out.



This at least alleges a misinterpretation or misapplication of law, which could potentially be the basis for a successful appeal. I don't mean to say that it would or will be successful, but at least it goes to a potentially appeal able point.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryoder

***I have to wonder whether Kim's and her compadres' attorneys advised them, in advance, and in writing: "if you take this to trial and lose, you're likely to get hit with having to pay their costs, probably in the range of at least $XXXXX." For those attorneys' sake, they better have.

:)



It came up in trial that Gibbs was telling potential plaintiffs her lawyers would draw up an agreement that Gibbs would cover any potential payouts in case of a loss, and Gibbs attorneys immediately objected to that line of questioning.

The plaintiffs now (rightfully and by a judges order) owe Mile High tens of thousands of dollars. Go ahead.... run up the bill. Personally, I believe Kimmy's new "call for cash" is an attempt to get the CQS followers to pay that bill as well. It's time for the CQS'ers to derail the money train.

Kimmy's been quoted saying that they have "pledges" for thousands of dollars and they need to collect those dollars and raise more for the appeal. The CQS's Nutcakes are about to find out the difference between getting pledges and collecting those pledges. :P

I think this case is over.
Birdshit & Fools Productions

"Son, only two things fall from the sky."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0