0
skydived19006

Rich Winstock Swoop Incident Cover-Up

Recommended Posts

I sure hope that's true about safety as I have clearly known that to be your outlook. We've certainly had PLENTY of discussions regarding safety. :)
I'm starting to think some of us are seeing this from two different perspectives.
I am trying to separate the investigation and board review process as very different from the actual incident.
I realize and understand why there needs to be a set process for investigation and review and that could very well involve some level of non-disclosure to the members.
Until complete anyway.

I also see that as a much different topic than what the mindset was on why an intentional swoop was made in a high risk area.
On a regular basis.


A guy that does that type of canopy flying has no business telling me I'm a danger to anybody. Ever.
I don't need a drunk driving me home thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All of this suspicion of a cover-up or conspiracy theory etc could be put to bed if someone from the USPA would make an official statement regarding the incident, investigation and outcome.

We could then all discuss the official facts instead of having to surmise, keep secrets and piece together things from different sources.

The USPA is supposed to work for its membership. It seems like the general membership is deliberately being kept in the dark here.
"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocPop

All of this suspicion of a cover-up or conspiracy theory etc could be put to bed if someone from the USPA would make an official statement regarding the incident, investigation and outcome.

We could then all discuss the official facts instead of having to surmise, keep secrets and piece together things from different sources.

The USPA is supposed to work for its membership. It seems like the general membership is deliberately being kept in the dark here.



I'm not picking sides here, but if HQ made public statements about everything each member would like a statement about they would do nothing but make public statements all day every day.

I'm not even sure if the organization is required or authorized to discuss procedural matters with the general membership.

Anyone know the scoop on that?
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chuckakers

***All of this suspicion of a cover-up or conspiracy theory etc could be put to bed if someone from the USPA would make an official statement regarding the incident, investigation and outcome.

We could then all discuss the official facts instead of having to surmise, keep secrets and piece together things from different sources.

The USPA is supposed to work for its membership. It seems like the general membership is deliberately being kept in the dark here.



I'm not picking sides here, but if HQ made public statements about everything each member would like a statement about they would do nothing but make public statements all day every day.

I'm not even sure if the organization is required or authorized to discuss procedural matters with the general membership.

Anyone know the scoop on that?

I'm not an insider in any stretch of the imagination. I am sure they are not required to make any sort of public statement. I do remember whole bunch of the current board members promising more transparency and accountability to the membership when they were running for the board in the last election...
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Southern_Man

******All of this suspicion of a cover-up or conspiracy theory etc could be put to bed if someone from the USPA would make an official statement regarding the incident, investigation and outcome.

We could then all discuss the official facts instead of having to surmise, keep secrets and piece together things from different sources.

The USPA is supposed to work for its membership. It seems like the general membership is deliberately being kept in the dark here.



I'm not picking sides here, but if HQ made public statements about everything each member would like a statement about they would do nothing but make public statements all day every day.

I'm not even sure if the organization is required or authorized to discuss procedural matters with the general membership.

Anyone know the scoop on that?

I'm not an insider in any stretch of the imagination. I am sure they are not required to make any sort of public statement. I do remember whole bunch of the current board members promising more transparency and accountability to the membership when they were running for the board in the last election...

Actually, when doing investigations, the opposite is true. When the BOD or a committee is discussing investigations or incidents because the person is requesting a rating or membership back, the gallery is cleared and only the BOD members are privy to the information. The person accused can come in and speak, bring in witnesses, etc. But the entire process is done behind closed doors so everyone speaks freely.

That is why no official word will come from USPA or a BOD member, they are bound by the confidentiality clause. Interestingly, that may mean Rich can't come here and speak, maybe he is bound by confidentiality on his own incident.....

top

edited for clarity
Jump more, post less!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
topdocker

*********All of this suspicion of a cover-up or conspiracy theory etc could be put to bed if someone from the USPA would make an official statement regarding the incident, investigation and outcome.

We could then all discuss the official facts instead of having to surmise, keep secrets and piece together things from different sources.

The USPA is supposed to work for its membership. It seems like the general membership is deliberately being kept in the dark here.



I'm not picking sides here, but if HQ made public statements about everything each member would like a statement about they would do nothing but make public statements all day every day.

I'm not even sure if the organization is required or authorized to discuss procedural matters with the general membership.

Anyone know the scoop on that?

I'm not an insider in any stretch of the imagination. I am sure they are not required to make any sort of public statement. I do remember whole bunch of the current board members promising more transparency and accountability to the membership when they were running for the board in the last election...

Actually, when doing investigations, the opposite is true. When the BOD or a committee is discussing investigations or incidents because the person is requesting a rating or membership back, the gallery is cleared and only the BOD members are privy to the information. The person accused can come in and speak, bring in witnesses, etc. But the entire process is done behind closed doors so everyone speaks freely.

That is why no official word will come from USPA or a BOD member, they are bound by the confidentiality clause. Interestingly, that may mean Rich can't come here and speak, maybe he is bound by confidentiality on his own incident.....

top

edited for clarity

I'm not a lawyer but going by my limited understanding of procedures - Rich is about the ONLY one that could speak publicly about the investigation by virtue of his being the target of it. Well...not 'it' but rather 'them'...

On about any level you look at it - makes sence that he would have no comment.

If in fact the reason for the two investigations, or the findings somehow make him look bad - why throw more light on it

On the other hand- if there isn't some really really really good reason he was put through two of them - (which has never happened before btw) and in fact a no discipline finding was attached to both... And seeing as how information that isn't normally made public was done so anonymously by some mystery guest USPA rep. . .

It would be in his best interest to have no comment publicly at THIS time too - which frankly would worry me, if I had by chance varied from historical procedures for some reason & made a guys life hell, that didn't have it coming. And tied up the organizations time and resources on something it wasn't in fact necessary to do & and other critical issues weren't given the attention they needed as a result.

Will be interesting to see how it all plays out...cause like I've been saying, never seen anything like this before. And incedents a lot worse that this have been addressed proceedurly sans the drama.


I keep wondering, why this incedent - why at this time & who gains when the never before seen unnamed mystery guest shows up.










~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

From what I've been told, this isn't the first time Sherry has tried to protect one of her buddy/BOD members. She recently tried to squash a problem with an RD, but Jay heard about it and got things done right.



Who told you? Share your sources, share the details. If you don't, then this comment is complete hot air. Give us some facts.

If you don't have any *facts* to share, then you're just as knee deep in the bullshit as everyone else here.
Owned by Remi #?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
airtwardo

************All of this suspicion of a cover-up or conspiracy theory etc could be put to bed if someone from the USPA would make an official statement regarding the incident, investigation and outcome.

We could then all discuss the official facts instead of having to surmise, keep secrets and piece together things from different sources.

The USPA is supposed to work for its membership. It seems like the general membership is deliberately being kept in the dark here.



I'm not picking sides here, but if HQ made public statements about everything each member would like a statement about they would do nothing but make public statements all day every day.

I'm not even sure if the organization is required or authorized to discuss procedural matters with the general membership.

Anyone know the scoop on that?

I'm not an insider in any stretch of the imagination. I am sure they are not required to make any sort of public statement. I do remember whole bunch of the current board members promising more transparency and accountability to the membership when they were running for the board in the last election...

Actually, when doing investigations, the opposite is true. When the BOD or a committee is discussing investigations or incidents because the person is requesting a rating or membership back, the gallery is cleared and only the BOD members are privy to the information. The person accused can come in and speak, bring in witnesses, etc. But the entire process is done behind closed doors so everyone speaks freely.

That is why no official word will come from USPA or a BOD member, they are bound by the confidentiality clause. Interestingly, that may mean Rich can't come here and speak, maybe he is bound by confidentiality on his own incident.....

top

edited for clarity

I'm not a lawyer but going by my limited understanding of procedures - Rich is about the ONLY one that could speak publicly about the investigation by virtue of his being the target of it. Well...not 'it' but rather 'them'...

On about any level you look at it - makes sence that he would have no comment.

If in fact the reason for the two investigations, or the findings somehow make him look bad - why throw more light on it

On the other hand- if there isn't some really really really good reason he was put through two of them - (which has never happened before btw) and in fact a no discipline finding was attached to both... And seeing as how information that isn't normally made public was done so anonymously by some mystery guest USPA rep. . .

It would be in his best interest to have no comment publicly at THIS time too - which frankly would worry me, if I had by chance varied from historical procedures for some reason & made a guys life hell, that didn't have it coming. And tied up the organizations time and resources on something it wasn't in fact necessary to do & and other critical issues weren't given the attention they needed as a result.

Will be interesting to see how it all plays out...cause like I've been saying, never seen anything like this before. And incedents a lot worse that this have been addressed proceedurly sans the drama.


I keep wondering, why this incedent - why at this time & who gains when the never before seen unnamed mystery guest shows up.


I'm speaking from a pretty ignorant perspective, but just today I heard for the first time a completely different version of what happened than was reported in the original incidents thread. That thread made it sound like Rich's behavior was blatantly reckless and prompted many who read it to get on a "throw the bum out" soapbox. What I heard today was quite different and didn't sound at all like his actions were anything more than a botched execution.

I don't know which version - if either - was correct, but the original version getting such a venomous response from many members may have had something to do with HQ's actions.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chuckakers

***************All of this suspicion of a cover-up or conspiracy theory etc could be put to bed if someone from the USPA would make an official statement regarding the incident, investigation and outcome.

We could then all discuss the official facts instead of having to surmise, keep secrets and piece together things from different sources.

The USPA is supposed to work for its membership. It seems like the general membership is deliberately being kept in the dark here.



I'm not picking sides here, but if HQ made public statements about everything each member would like a statement about they would do nothing but make public statements all day every day.

I'm not even sure if the organization is required or authorized to discuss procedural matters with the general membership.

Anyone know the scoop on that?

I'm not an insider in any stretch of the imagination. I am sure they are not required to make any sort of public statement. I do remember whole bunch of the current board members promising more transparency and accountability to the membership when they were running for the board in the last election...

Actually, when doing investigations, the opposite is true. When the BOD or a committee is discussing investigations or incidents because the person is requesting a rating or membership back, the gallery is cleared and only the BOD members are privy to the information. The person accused can come in and speak, bring in witnesses, etc. But the entire process is done behind closed doors so everyone speaks freely.

That is why no official word will come from USPA or a BOD member, they are bound by the confidentiality clause. Interestingly, that may mean Rich can't come here and speak, maybe he is bound by confidentiality on his own incident.....

top

edited for clarity

I'm not a lawyer but going by my limited understanding of procedures - Rich is about the ONLY one that could speak publicly about the investigation by virtue of his being the target of it. Well...not 'it' but rather 'them'...

On about any level you look at it - makes sence that he would have no comment.

If in fact the reason for the two investigations, or the findings somehow make him look bad - why throw more light on it

On the other hand- if there isn't some really really really good reason he was put through two of them - (which has never happened before btw) and in fact a no discipline finding was attached to both... And seeing as how information that isn't normally made public was done so anonymously by some mystery guest USPA rep. . .

It would be in his best interest to have no comment publicly at THIS time too - which frankly would worry me, if I had by chance varied from historical procedures for some reason & made a guys life hell, that didn't have it coming. And tied up the organizations time and resources on something it wasn't in fact necessary to do & and other critical issues weren't given the attention they needed as a result.

Will be interesting to see how it all plays out...cause like I've been saying, never seen anything like this before. And incedents a lot worse that this have been addressed proceedurly sans the drama.


I keep wondering, why this incedent - why at this time & who gains when the never before seen unnamed mystery guest shows up.


I'm speaking from a pretty ignorant perspective, but just today I heard for the first time a completely different version of what happened than was reported in the original incidents thread. That thread made it sound like Rich's behavior was blatantly reckless and prompted many who read it to get on a "throw the bum out" soapbox. What I heard today was quite different and didn't sound at all like his actions were anything more than a botched execution.

I don't know which version - if either - was correct, but the original version getting such a venomous response from many members may have had something to do with HQ's actions.


Things that make ya go hummmmmm.










~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
airtwardo



I'm not a lawyer but going by my limited understanding of procedures - Rich is about the ONLY one that could speak publicly about the investigation by virtue of his being the target of it. Well...not 'it' but rather 'them'...

On about any level you look at it - makes sence that he would have no comment.

If in fact the reason for the two investigations, or the findings somehow make him look bad - why throw more light on it

On the other hand- if there isn't some really really really good reason he was put through two of them - (which has never happened before btw) and in fact a no discipline finding was attached to both... And seeing as how information that isn't normally made public was done so anonymously by some mystery guest USPA rep. . .

It would be in his best interest to have no comment publicly at THIS time too - which frankly would worry me, if I had by chance varied from historical procedures for some reason & made a guys life hell, that didn't have it coming. And tied up the organizations time and resources on something it wasn't in fact necessary to do & and other critical issues weren't given the attention they needed as a result.

Will be interesting to see how it all plays out...cause like I've been saying, never seen anything like this before. And incedents a lot worse that this have been addressed proceedurly sans the drama.


I keep wondering, why this incedent - why at this time & who gains when the never before seen unnamed mystery guest shows up.



Did you miss my last post to you?
Have you not read Jan's publicly stated reason as to why there were two investigations?
Its beginning to look like you are purposefully ignoring that information, since you keep repeating the same points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug_Davis

***

I'm not a lawyer but going by my limited understanding of procedures - Rich is about the ONLY one that could speak publicly about the investigation by virtue of his being the target of it. Well...not 'it' but rather 'them'...

On about any level you look at it - makes sence that he would have no comment.

If in fact the reason for the two investigations, or the findings somehow make him look bad - why throw more light on it

On the other hand- if there isn't some really really really good reason he was put through two of them - (which has never happened before btw) and in fact a no discipline finding was attached to both... And seeing as how information that isn't normally made public was done so anonymously by some mystery guest USPA rep. . .

It would be in his best interest to have no comment publicly at THIS time too - which frankly would worry me, if I had by chance varied from historical procedures for some reason & made a guys life hell, that didn't have it coming. And tied up the organizations time and resources on something it wasn't in fact necessary to do & and other critical issues weren't given the attention they needed as a result.

Will be interesting to see how it all plays out...cause like I've been saying, never seen anything like this before. And incedents a lot worse that this have been addressed proceedurly sans the drama.


I keep wondering, why this incedent - why at this time & who gains when the never before seen unnamed mystery guest shows up.



Did you miss my last post to you?
Have you not read Jan's publicly stated reason as to why there were two investigations?
Its beginning to look like you are purposefully ignoring that information, since you keep repeating the same points.


I did read your last statement...however didn't address it, not sure how to since it's my understanding bod members are somewhat limited as to the extent of information regarding the whole investigation process thing - there may be more to it than was sumerized.

But hey, maybe not...could be, making public statements about that stuff is for some reason ok in this case - unlike every other one. ;)










~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chuckakers


I'm speaking from a pretty ignorant perspective, but just today I heard for the first time a completely different version of what happened than was reported in the original incidents thread. That thread made it sound like Rich's behavior was blatantly reckless and prompted many who read it to get on a "throw the bum out" soapbox. What I heard today was quite different and didn't sound at all like his actions were anything more than a botched execution.

I don't know which version - if either - was correct, but the original version getting such a venomous response from many members may have had something to do with HQ's actions.



So, it would appear that the "confidentiality clause" is working just fine. Again, someone comes on here CLAIMING knowledge contrary to posted information (even from 1st hand accounts, and does NOT share this version.

It has also been hinted at that we are being distracted from something else going on with USPA that has nothing to do with this incident, but again no details on that either.
airtwardo



I keep wondering, why this incedent - why at this time & who gains when the never before seen unnamed mystery guest shows up.


I actually understand that the reason we are not getting the factual story, is that they were in an email that was kept on Lois Lerners' hard drive.

Don't Pull Low... Unless You ARE!!!
The pessimist says, "It can't get any worse than this." The optimist says, "Sure, it can."
Be fun, have safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chuckakers


I'm speaking from a pretty ignorant perspective, but just today I heard for the first time a completely different version of what happened than was reported in the original incidents thread. That thread made it sound like Rich's behavior was blatantly reckless and prompted many who read it to get on a "throw the bum out" soapbox. What I heard today was quite different and didn't sound at all like his actions were anything more than a botched execution.

I don't know which version - if either - was correct, but the original version getting such a venomous response from many members may have had something to do with HQ's actions.



Could you elaborate on the alternative explanation?
"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocPop

***
I'm speaking from a pretty ignorant perspective, but just today I heard for the first time a completely different version of what happened than was reported in the original incidents thread. That thread made it sound like Rich's behavior was blatantly reckless and prompted many who read it to get on a "throw the bum out" soapbox. What I heard today was quite different and didn't sound at all like his actions were anything more than a botched execution.

I don't know which version - if either - was correct, but the original version getting such a venomous response from many members may have had something to do with HQ's actions.



Could you elaborate on the alternative explanation?

Do you know the secret handshake?
Your rights end where my feelings begin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jclalor

Is it possible that the reluctance of the USPA to publicly discuss this matter is do to the possibility of them being named in a civil lawsuit?



It's guesswork to speculate about others' state of mind, especially a group of others. That being said, assuming Rich wasn't performing his jump on behalf of the USPA or in the course of his duties with the USPA (and despite the old canard that anyone can try to sue anyone for anything), I see no basis for any liability claim at all against the USPA arising out of this incident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy9o8

***Is it possible that the reluctance of the USPA to publicly discuss this matter is do to the possibility of them being named in a civil lawsuit?



It's guesswork to speculate about others' state of mind, especially a group of others. That being said, assuming Rich wasn't performing his jump on behalf of the USPA or in the course of his duties with the USPA (and despite the old canard that anyone can try to sue anyone for anything), I see no basis for any liability claim at all against the USPA arising out of this incident.

No, but a public statement from USPA with some sort of punitive action would surely be a great asset in a lawsuit against the jumper. So, if you want to protect your friend...
Remster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocPop

***
I'm speaking from a pretty ignorant perspective, but just today I heard for the first time a completely different version of what happened than was reported in the original incidents thread. That thread made it sound like Rich's behavior was blatantly reckless and prompted many who read it to get on a "throw the bum out" soapbox. What I heard today was quite different and didn't sound at all like his actions were anything more than a botched execution.

I don't know which version - if either - was correct, but the original version getting such a venomous response from many members may have had something to do with HQ's actions.



Could you elaborate on the alternative explanation?

Here is from the original incident thread:

Quote

Hi all.

I am marko another DZO of the DZ.

I am with Tyfani right now and she is looking great and should be out of the hospital in a day or two. Rich had surgery the other day on his femur and he is home.

As to what happened, we have a lot of stuff going on right now other then this incident so excuse me for not announcing it all.

Saturday during sunset load Tyfani was sitting on a bench in the spectator area 2-3 feet from the rope keeping that area and the landing area separate. Rich did a 120 degree turn about as i watched before i started my turn over the landing area.I couldn't see exactly what part of the building/grass/tent he went over but was clearly near the spectator area. He came next to the tent and was pretty low, he ended up hitting a picnic table first which he broke his femur on and then bounced off and hit Tyfani. She got thrown forward 2-3 and onto the ground. Both got media-vac out because of riches femur which was critical, and we were scared that he may have caused damage to her spinal cord. We weren't taking any chances and had her on another helicopter out. It was a freak accident that shouldn't have happened, thank god both are making a full recovery.

Rich is very sorry about the whole thing and theres nothing he can do to take the chain of events back at this point. Ive been jumping with him for about 6 years now and we have done 1000's of jumps together, he is very safe and heads up and has a lot of knowledge, just wish this isn't the one where he messed up that it brought another person into it.

The picture of someone swooping between the tent and building is me. We sometimes sent up loads just with fun jumpers and had some fun swooping keeping people out of harms way.There is no reason any of us should be doing what we did. Now that we area much more busy drop zone with a turbine we won't be doing that anymore. Im really sorry this all happened and we are all happy no one got more injured then they were.



Bold added for emphasis by me.

This first-hand account sure sounds like an intentional move into an area with spectators and obstacles in it while technically landing in the landing area. Aerial photos show lots of other areas if he was landing short due to a bad spot.

So, who has another version?

top
Jump more, post less!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
topdocker

******
I'm speaking from a pretty ignorant perspective, but just today I heard for the first time a completely different version of what happened than was reported in the original incidents thread. That thread made it sound like Rich's behavior was blatantly reckless and prompted many who read it to get on a "throw the bum out" soapbox. What I heard today was quite different and didn't sound at all like his actions were anything more than a botched execution.

I don't know which version - if either - was correct, but the original version getting such a venomous response from many members may have had something to do with HQ's actions.



Could you elaborate on the alternative explanation?

Here is from the original incident thread:

Quote

Hi all.

I am marko another DZO of the DZ.

I am with Tyfani right now and she is looking great and should be out of the hospital in a day or two. Rich had surgery the other day on his femur and he is home.

As to what happened, we have a lot of stuff going on right now other then this incident so excuse me for not announcing it all.

Saturday during sunset load Tyfani was sitting on a bench in the spectator area 2-3 feet from the rope keeping that area and the landing area separate. Rich did a 120 degree turn about as i watched before i started my turn over the landing area.I couldn't see exactly what part of the building/grass/tent he went over but was clearly near the spectator area. He came next to the tent and was pretty low, he ended up hitting a picnic table first which he broke his femur on and then bounced off and hit Tyfani. She got thrown forward 2-3 and onto the ground. Both got media-vac out because of riches femur which was critical, and we were scared that he may have caused damage to her spinal cord. We weren't taking any chances and had her on another helicopter out. It was a freak accident that shouldn't have happened, thank god both are making a full recovery.

Rich is very sorry about the whole thing and theres nothing he can do to take the chain of events back at this point. Ive been jumping with him for about 6 years now and we have done 1000's of jumps together, he is very safe and heads up and has a lot of knowledge, just wish this isn't the one where he messed up that it brought another person into it.

The picture of someone swooping between the tent and building is me. We sometimes sent up loads just with fun jumpers and had some fun swooping keeping people out of harms way.There is no reason any of us should be doing what we did. Now that we area much more busy drop zone with a turbine we won't be doing that anymore. Im really sorry this all happened and we are all happy no one got more injured then they were.



Bold added for emphasis by me.

This first-hand account sure sounds like an intentional move into an area with spectators and obstacles in it while technically landing in the landing area. Aerial photos show lots of other areas if he was landing short due to a bad spot.

So, who has another version?

topNo, he only intended to swoop really, really close, not to hit her (or the table), so it wasn't really intentional. ;)
This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocPop

***
I'm speaking from a pretty ignorant perspective, but just today I heard for the first time a completely different version of what happened than was reported in the original incidents thread. That thread made it sound like Rich's behavior was blatantly reckless and prompted many who read it to get on a "throw the bum out" soapbox. What I heard today was quite different and didn't sound at all like his actions were anything more than a botched execution.

I don't know which version - if either - was correct, but the original version getting such a venomous response from many members may have had something to do with HQ's actions.



Could you elaborate on the alternative explanation?

Nope. Wouldn't help at all. There are so many stories going around now that it would only muddy the water even more. In fact I've since heard an unsolicited version of the incident from an eye witness that couldn't have been more different.

Here's an idea. Let's have witnesses post what they ACTUALLY SAW!
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy9o8

***Is it possible that the reluctance of the USPA to publicly discuss this matter is do to the possibility of them being named in a civil lawsuit?



It's guesswork to speculate about others' state of mind, especially a group of others. That being said, assuming Rich wasn't performing his jump on behalf of the USPA or in the course of his duties with the USPA (and despite the old canard that anyone can try to sue anyone for anything), I see no basis for any liability claim at all against the USPA arising out of this incident.

Out of the incedent are the key words here.

Maybe think a little further out of the box...

Is there maybe something some representatives on the board of directors may have done that could possibly put the organization at risk ?










~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

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