0
Thanatos340

USPA - Jan Meyer Impeachment??

Recommended Posts

unwittingly provided confidential and damaging information to the oposing attorney

The key word there is 'unwittingly'. I'd argue that it is just incompetence, not illegal or unethical. On the other hand it might be considered that for the opposing attorney to act on that questionably obtained information could be considered unethical, and even in some cases illegal.
If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You understand that USPA was sued by skyride, not the other way around, right? Jan spoke out against skyride before, during, and after the lawsuit. Skyride didn't like that a national director of the uspa was badmouthing them and then the uspa kicked out their owners and the dropzones they own. Thats why they sued. Jan was named specifically in the lawsuit. I don't know where all this stuff about providing information to the opposing attorney comes from. Jan pissed off the uspa board. They told her to shut up about skyride and she didn't. Good for her... but it probably cost the uspa some money and probably opens the uspa up to another lawsuit from skyride. The uspa is afraid that having a national director that's likely to speak out against skyride publicly will cost them more money. They took down their consumer alert about skyride, but jan still has a whole website about skyride. USPA wants to cut their ties to her.

Course I'm just guessing here...

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Frankly it had to be a majority of the board that initiated the lawsuit; if Jan is the reason the organization had to settle, one would say as an executive of the organization she would have to answer TO HER EMPLOYERS, IN OTHER WORDS, THE MEMBERSHIP



Skypuppy, this may be too personal of a question but did you vote for or against impeaching Clinton?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cutting their ties with someone who has in the past made statements and set up websites relating to Skyride may be necessary before the USPA is actually able to take any further action in relation to Skyride.

I know there's a substantial conspiracy theory here in this thread... but it is just possible that the USPA is doing this so that they can in the future take action against Skyride without getting sued again.

...maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I don't understand how any court in America would allow somewhat anonymous postings on an internet forum as evidence. Look at all the drunk ramblings in bonfire and other forums, how serious can you really take most of what you see on internet forums.



Actually there is plenty of case law stating exactly the opposite. Statements on the internet are real and carry real consequences civilly and criminally.



How do they prove who actually typed it and if they weren't under the influence of something? Not to mention that the USPA attornies didn't do their due dilligence. We need to fire whoever hired them!


J
Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You understand that USPA was sued by skyride, not the other way around, right? Jan spoke out against skyride before, during, and after the lawsuit. Skyride didn't like that a national director of the uspa was badmouthing them and then the uspa kicked out their owners and the dropzones they own. Thats why they sued. Jan was named specifically in the lawsuit.



Now this thread is getting somewhere. Let's see how many people will ignore your post, and continue on with the conspiracy theories.

The number of people who seem to think that the USPA sued Skyride just indicates how little they understand about the situation. I'm far from an expert on this, but at least I know who sued who, and why.

As for everyone crowing about details, and Glen Bangs keeping a lid on everything, get a grip. Bangs may be a 'good old boy', but that's not relevant in this situation. It's almost standard practice in a settlement that the defendants are required to keep the details of the settlement confidential. These datials may have included the removal of Jan from the BOD.

Anyway you look at, Skyride had the USPA bent over a barrel. At the time of the settlement one of two things happened - either the USPA ran out of money to defend the remaining charges, or they realized that they were guilty of the remaining charges, and were able to settle for less than the expected cost of the continued defense and resulting judgement that would be brought against them.

USPA has every right to out people or DZs from the organization. The do not have the right to publically ruin the 'good name' of those people or businesses. In this case, Jan's out spoken nature worked against the USPA as she is an elected representative, and in turn, her actions represent the USPA, good or bad.

This is similar to the situation with Kip, the RD in the mideastern region. He did an underage tandem without filing for a waiver. Thankfully everything turned out ok on that jump, but seeing as he is a sitting BOD memeber, and the infraction of the rules was a matter of public record, he needs to be removed from the board. If he is involved in any further incidents, either due to his poor judegement, or just a legitimate accident, and it comes out that he had a history of this behavior and that the USPA knew about it, and took no action, it opens the USPA up to a great liability.

Now why the USPA is choosing to oust one liability from the BOD, and not the other is anyone's guess. The fact remains that its flat negligence to allow a person who has opened the USPA up to great liability (or actual cost in the form of defending a lawsuit) to remain on the board. Allowing such a person to remain on the board sets a precedent of bad judgement on the part of the board as a whole, and in turn the entire organization.

Maybe Jan is a great person, and maybe everything else she did was great for the skydiving and the USPA, but in this instance, the BODs hands are tied, and they have to protect the organization (and they may actually HAVE to in order to satisfy the settlement).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quick question... How can the terms of settlement in Skyride's lawsuit against the USPA, which is funded and composed of US, be kept secret from US? We aren't just stockholders, we ARE the USPA, are we not?



The terms of the settlement are set by Skyride, not the USPA. Clearly they had the upper hand in the lawsuit, so the USPA needed to settle.

Being dirty back-handed weasels, it's not hard to imagine that Skyride stipulated that the terms of the settlement not be released to the membership. This way they spin the story anyway they want when they explain themsleves to jumpers.

Lets face it, they still own DZs, and still need staff, and want fun jumpers around, so the details of how they ass-raped the USPA might put a damper on that.

If I was them, I would have made sure the details never got out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

USPA has every right to out people or DZs from the organization.



They tried that. They got sued.

Quote

The do not have the right to publically ruin the 'good name' of those people or businesses.



What Good name?? The name of a Business that there are well documented cases of defrauding the general public for many years?

How do ignore the fact that members of the Executive Committee are supporters of and business associates of the group they settled with?

If there is any impropriety here.. That is IT!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was in favor of impeaching Bill Clinton. For that matter I wasn't impressed with Hillary's ethical behavior either.

The difference of course is that Bill got worried about his image and/or the bogeyman, sexual harassment and then entered into a conspiracy to cover it up (in my opinion); where Jan is obviously willing to let people know her opinions in a website that is supposedly still up, and is willing to stand up for her beliefs.

I believe some people here are saying USPA didn't want to defend the lawsuit, not that what Jan said was untrue. That is a major distinction.
If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand that, but if someone is suing the USPA, aren't they in effect, suing us? I guess my thinking is that if the USPA exists only because of us, and it is OUR organization, no settlements should be made without being put forth to the membership via their ND-RD's. If WE decide to tell the suing parties to piss off at the expense of bankrupting ourselves, that should be our right. AT LEAST, we should be told how our money (or whatever the conditions) is being spent to settle something we never agreed to settle.

How can OUR organization be asked, or on their own, keep secrets from us? Seems like it defeats the whole purpose of the organization.
Oh, hello again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What Good name?? The name of a Business that there are well documented cases of defrauding the general public for many years?



Again, you and I know the real deal. We know what they're doing, but they seem to have found ways to skirt the law, have not been found guilty in a court fo law. Yeah, it sucks but that's the reality.

The continuation of that reality is that they have the right to protect their 'good name', even if it's only 'good' in the strictest legal sense. That gives them the right to bring suit against the USPA, from the looks of it they would have won, or bankrupted the organization in the process.

Quote

How do ignore the fact that members of the Executive Committee are supporters of and business associates of the group they settled with?



What I don't get is that if this collusion exists, why would the BOD attempt to remove the Skyride crew from the USPA in the first place?

Wouldn't it make more sense for the conspirators to leave them in the USPA, and just claim, 'There's nothing we can do about it'?

Look, I'm not a big fan of the USPA, but I do see how removing Jan from the board is the prudent thing to do. It might not be fair, but to leave a liability like that in place is just asking for trouble in the future.

Check out the ad that Ted Strong runs every month in Parachutist. Do you really think Ted wants to devote 1/3 of his ad space to the harness mod that keeps fat people in a tandem harness?

Furthermore, do you think Ted wants to run an ad which shows a mod to his product, which he has sold and considered safe for many years?

Of course not, but one bad incident has now set the precedent. It's plausable for Ted to deny any knowledge of how a fat person could fall out of his tandem harness BEFORE the incident. If it should ever happen again, and Ted took no action, Strong Enterprises and everything else he owns would be lost in the ensuing lawsuit.

If Jan were allowed to stay, and got a bug up her ass about something else in a year or two, and took similar actions, this would open the USPA up to another lawsuit. I'm fairly certain that the lawyers in that suit would research the Skyride suit, and once they saw that the actor in that suit was still a BOD member, and had been the actor in their suit, the case would be a slam dunk. There would be no settlement, and in the end, there would be no USPA.

I know that's what many people are shooting for anyway, but we all know that's not the best way to go about it. Starting a new organization, and killing the USPA by slowly stealing all its membership is the way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I understand that, but if someone is suing the USPA, aren't they in effect, suing us? I guess my thinking is that if the USPA exists only because of us, and it is OUR organization, no settlements should be made without being put forth to the membership via their ND-RD's. If WE decide to tell the suing parties to piss off at the expense of bankrupting ourselves, that should be our right. AT LEAST, we should be told how our money (or whatever the conditions) is being spent to settle something we never agreed to settle.



I hear you man, but that's why we have elections. There's no practical way to run an organization of 32,000 people if you intend to hold general elections on every issue.

So we elect a representative to handle that business. By giving someone your vote during the elections, you're giving them your vote during every BOD meeting, and on every issue that comes across their desk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ask the EC, any member that had any association with Skyride excused themselves from being involved in the settling of this situation. At least 1 member of the EC stepped aside in this process to remove the percieved conflict of interest.
Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What I don't get is that if this collusion exists, why would the BOD attempt to remove the Skyride crew from the USPA in the first place?

Wouldn't it make more sense for the conspirators to leave them in the USPA, and just claim, 'There's nothing we can do about it'?



The BOD Voted Skyride out, The Executive Committee settled with them and let them back in..

One last time I ask..

1) What actions of Jans caused us to have to settle? No one really knows. No one can say. Just that that is what the EC is implying.

2) Was that decision made on sound legal Advise?

3) doesn’t it bother anyone else that the EC that kept everything secret about this lawsuit while it was going on and then settled it with out consulting with the BOD and/or the general membership?

4) Does anyone else see the impropriety in the EC that is handling this matter is made up of Skyride supporters and business associates?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the USPA, and I don't defend most of their actions.

In this case, however, I can see how this is the appropriate action.

The reason Skyride could bring an anti-trust lawsuit is that in some way the USPA attempted to limit the marketplace.

It doesn't take a genius to see that creating an anti-Skyride website is an attempt to limit the marketplace, or at least exclude Skyride from it.

On its own, this is harmless, and a simple case of libel/slander agaisnt the person (s) responsible for the website.

The fact that the person responsible was a sitting member of the BOD for the national organization that the handles the industry is where this becomes an anti-trust suit.

We all need to realize that once you accept a position on the BOD, everything you do with regards to skydiving has a direct connection to the USPA. You become a representative, in the legal sense, for better or worse.

Is it fair that she has to go? No.

Was she doing anything that was outwardly bad for skydiving? No, quite the opposite.

Did she have any malice toward the USPA in her actions? No.

Did she open the USPA up to considerable legal and financial liability? Yes.

Can she be allowed to remain on the board, representing the USPA, in light of this? No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
interesting discussion, but guys, let me ask a question...

as a student/novice jumper I was always encouraged to look for advice & help from my instructors, respect opinions of those who are far more experienced than I am, and always ask for a qualified advice from a knowledgable person in that particular discipline

so my question is simple - are there any experienced lawyers in this forum (with sufficient knowledge of this case), who can provide a qualified opinion to this matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

We all need to realize that once you accept a position on the BOD, everything you do with regards to skydiving has a direct connection to the USPA. You become a representative, in the legal sense, for better or worse.



Exactly. Look at dozens if not more past threads where it's said "XXXX did this, and that bastard is a RD" or "XXX did that and he's on the EC..." BOD members have a responsibility to the organization, and they're held to a different standard than you or I. As a member of any administrative body, words in any direction carry significantly more weight than they do when spoken by a layperson. Who has more credibility being interviewed about a stock scandal, Joe Schmoe, stockholder/janitor? Or Winston Cartwright, Senior Vice President at Berkshire-Hathaway? After all, both are stockholders in the company, just as we're all "stockholders" in USPA.

I'm not a spokesperson for the organization. Therefore I'm not hostage to any responsibility to the organization. Were I elected to wear the badge, I'd be responsible to the greater good of the organization, and any personal issues I might have must be shelved.

If I couldn't shelve those issues, I'd expect myself to step down/aside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It doesn't take a genius to see that creating an anti-Skyride website is an attempt to limit the marketplace, or at least exclude Skyride from it.



Not when that website contains factual information about a company that is defrauding the general public and members of organization that she represents.

In fact that website could be seen as PROTECTING the marketplace from a predatory and fraudulent company that is damaging the free market place.

Elected officials have an OBLIGATION to inform the membership and general public about these things.

The fact that many Skydiving center exist and operate outside of the USPA could be argued by a COMPETENT attorney as proof that anti-trust is not relevant.

Quote

On its own, this is harmless, and a simple case of libel/slander agaisnt the person (s) responsible for the website.



Not when the information presented is factual.

Quote

The fact that the person responsible was a sitting member of the BOD for the national organization that the handles the industry is where this becomes an anti-trust suit.



That is because the USPA made the mistake of creating the Group Membership program to begin with making them appear to some as a Trade organization. A true root cause analysis of why we may have been forced to settle could be that we have a group membership program in the first place. Are we a trade organization or are we a member organization? Who does the USPA really represent?

The fact that this issue is questionable may be the REAL reason we were forced to settle.

Quote

You become a representative, in the legal sense, for better or worse.



And with that comes the responsibility to protect the members of the organization that you represent and the general public. Notifying the general Public about factual information should be part of ANY elected officials responsibilities.

It is very easy to point fingers, blame Jan and let her take the fall for this but the reality is that there are MANY reasons we got screwed. Jan fulfilling her obligations to her constituency and the general public is the least of the reasons in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm not a spokesperson for the organization. Therefore I'm not hostage to any responsibility to the organization. Were I elected to wear the badge, I'd be responsible to the greater good of the organization, and any personal issues I might have must be shelved.



Thinking in terms of the greater good of the organization, can you see how Jan needs to be removed from the board?

Not from a peronsal standpoint, or even based on what you know to be the 'right' thing to do, but based on the legal situation as it currently exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It doesn't take a genius to see that creating an anti-Skyride website is an attempt to limit the marketplace, or at least exclude Skyride from it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Not when that website contains factual information about a company that is defrauding the general public and members of organization that she represents.

In fact that website could be seen as PROTECTING the marketplace from a predatory and fraudulent company that is damaging the free market place.

Elected officials have an OBLIGATION to inform the membership and general public about these things.

The fact that many Skydiving center exist and operate outside of the USPA could be argued by a COMPETENT attorney as proof that anti-trust is not relevant




I understand your feelings on this, but some of your assumptions are not correct. If this was indeed not a legitimate anti-trust suit, than the USPA would not have settled.

In fact, it never would have made it to trial if the case no merit.

The fact that it made it to trial, and that settling was found to be the best option all points to this being a legitimate anti-trust suit.

Again I understand your feelings, but you're not a lawyer (as fas as I know) and not an expert in the field of anti-trust lawsuits. Neither am I, but my statements are based on the sitaution at hand. Your statements are based on yor impression of what youthink should or should not be considered anit-trust.

As far as your finger pointing at the USPA lawyers as being incompetent, this is the first I have heard of any of this. Not knowing these people, or having knowledge of their actions with regards to this case, I have no place to speak on this issue, and most likely, neither do you.

Quote

the USPA made the mistake of creating the Group Membership program to begin with making them appear to some as a Trade organization.



This is 100% true. However, everything Jan did was after the GM program was in place, and she had full knowledge of the GM program and it's intent and scope.

Her actions can only be considered in light of the actual situation at the time of her actions. You are correct in your claim that if the GM program did not exist, the lawsuit may have not existed, but the reality is that it did, and it did.


I think what you're missing here is that this not an emotional decision. Your feelings about how things should be are not relevant. How things actually are is what is relevant.

1.The USPA was sued for anti-trust actions.

2.The suit named Jan, and her website as the cause.

3.The suit went to trial, and was argued in front of a judge in a court of law.

4.Portions of the suit had enough merit that the USPA settled the suit to put a limit on the losses it would be taking.

5.In the wake of this, it is neccesary for the USPA to sever it's ties to Jan in order to protect itself from future liability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Thinking in terms of the greater good of the organization, can you see how Jan needs to be removed from the board?

Not from a peronsal standpoint, or even based on what you know to be the 'right' thing to do, but based on the legal situation as it currently exists.



Yes, I can.
I did not begin the day yesterday with that opinion. I'm uncomfortable with my opinion now, but believe it's the appropriate opinion.
Regardless of how/why USPA was being sued by Skyride, how USPA got into that position; nothing should have been said from a position of authority against Skyride during or after litigation if a standard order of confidentiality was placed on it. IMO, Jan would have been, and still could be much more effective in the fight by stepping aside from USPA and continuing the fight on an individual platform vs on the USPA platform.
It's not uninteresting that it's often posted in the Incidents forum that posters need to be cautious of what is said, as it may be used by the family of the deceased to sue a DZ, pilot, manufacturer, whomever, but for whatever reason, that same prudence isn't being recognized in this very similar situation. If a perceived Expert in our sport posts that "XXX died because of stainless RSL," then it must be so, because Expert with 6000 jumps says so, providing a perfect affidavit for an attorney.
Wouldn't one imagine that a posting by a member of the BOD carries the same weight, if not greater weight?
I'm not excited about understanding the process that brought me to a different conclusion than I'd begun my day with, but after careful consideration, I think it's the correct one.
However, I'm not on the BOD and therefore cannot vote, so my opinion isn't worth the time it took you to read my post.

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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