Andy9o8

Members
  • Content

    24,274
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by Andy9o8


  1. The following Provisions from the SIM would seem to apply:

    Quote


    C. Logging jumps for licenses and ratings

    1. Skydives offered as evidence of qualification must have been:

    a. made in accordance with the USPA requirements in effect at the time of the jump

    b. legibly recorded in chronological order in an appropriate log that contains the following information:

    (1) jump number

    (2) date

    (3) location

    (4) exit altitude

    (5) freefall length (time)

    (6) type of jump (formation skydiving, freeflying, canopy formation, style, etc.)

    (7) landing distance from the target

    (8) equipment used

    (9) verifying signature

    2. Jumps for license and rating qualifications must be signed by another licensed skydiver, a pilot, or a USPA National or FAI Judge who witnessed the jump.

    3. Jumps to meet skill requirements must be signed by a USPA Instructor, Instructor Examiner, Safety & Training Advisor, or a member of the USPA Board of Directors.

    .....



    E. License privileges and requirements

    A License

    1. Persons holding a USPA A license may jump without supervision, pack their own main parachute, engage in basic group jumps, perform water jumps, and must have-

    a. completed 25 jumps

    b. completed all requirements listed on the USPA A License Proficiency Card

    c. completed five group freefall skydives involving at least two participants

    d. received the signature and official stamp on the USPA A License Proficiency Card or USPA A License Progression Card (ISP)


  2. RonD1120

    The Rebel Battle Flag is a symbol of hate and must be removed from all public areas. However, the U.S. Flag can be stomped on, burned, dipped in urine and feces and it is just an expression of free speech. I have trouble wrapping my mind around that.



    You're quite the spin-meister.

    Even now, post-recent legislative action in SC, the rebel flag may be displayed by anyone acting in their private individual capacity. It can also be worn, carried or displayed by any private individual, not only in any "public area" (your ambiguous term) like a public sidewalk, but even while on publicly-owned land - as long as it is not affixed to a public building or land. State or federal government actors forcing someone to, for example, remove a rebel flag from their clothing or vehicle while on publicly-owned land would (IMO) violate the US Constitution and (IMPO) would probably be declared as such by most any federal court.

    Go wear a rebel flag t-shirt into the State Capitol Building in S.C. If they force you to remove it or leave, I'll betcha the ACLU would be willing to help you fight and win in federal court, just as they helped that Nazi group secure the right to march through Skokie, IL a couple decades ago.

    All of that remains constitutionally-protected free speech.

  3. Jumping student mil-surp gear back in the day. Had a total on a 4-pin main, was pitched head-downish because I had both hands inboard trying to pull. At terminal, pulled chest-mount reserve, which deployed between my legs, whipping me around about 200 degrees. Purple thighs and balls for about a month.

  4. skyfreek

    this guy learned at the dz i work at. this balloon jump was his 20th jump. total. he doesn`t even know how to pack his own main yet.the last time i saw him jump was 2 days before the balloon stunt, and he missed the landing field... i think he is lucky to be alive. good thing cops in Canada are nice...



    Seems to me, this guy's got a pretty memorable 21st jump.

  5. Yes; my answer really wasn't complete without discussing subrogation, was it? I got so focused on John's small claims issue that I forgot to mention the subrogation angle, so thanks for the reminder. I'll fill-in that additional info now.

    To John Mitchell: Reach out to your insurance company and see if they intend to pursue subrogation (recovery from the other driver of the claim they paid to you). If so, you have to cooperate with it, but in most states (I didn't research WA state) your ins co also has to pursue the entire claim, and then if it recovers, it pays you the amount you lost on the deductible. Warning: your policy prohibits you from taking any action that might compromise your ins co's subrogation rights, so check with your ins co first before filing suit; and if you do file suit, you may need to file for the entire amount of damages; then if you win more than your deductible, that overage has to be turned over to your ins co.

    In other words, don't file in small claims court for just the $1500 deductible until/unless your ins co expressly authorizes you to do so in writing, in response to a letter from you explaining your situation and asking them for their advice and approvals. (Or, just turn the matter over to a WA lawyer and let him/her communicate with your ins co.)

    Coordinate anything/everything you do closely with your ins co - in advance! - to avoid running afoul of your duties under the policy. The last thing you want is to (ironically) get sued by your own ins co because they think you screwed up their subrogation claim against the other driver.

    If that's still clear as mud, consult with a WA lawyer. Our babies need new shoes, too. ;)

  6. JohnMitchell

    ******Not too long ago, one of my daughters had her car totaled and minor injuries when a teenage driver turned left in front of her. My daughter, of course, had a green light to go straight ahead and the teenage girl had a flashing yellow arrow. But the girl's mom showed up and coached her to lie and say she had a green arrow. To the cop that came, there was enough doubt he didn't issue a ticket.

    Our daughter's insurance paid what the car was "worth", not what was owed, and didn't compensate our daughter for injuries, medical bills and time lost from work.



    The cop isn't a judge, and the criminal standards for a ticket are higher than civil. The lack of a ticket shouldn't prevent you and your insurance company from pursuing further relief from the offending party. But it might be that the legal costs and uncertainty are too high without any proof.

    Thanks for that advice. She was shorted maybe $1500 between insurance payout and what she owed on the car. So, yeah, it probably wouldn't be worth it, except maybe in the small claims venue.

    $1500? Yeah, that's low-ish to engage an attorney. Still, though, a small general law office, especially a newer solo practitioner, might be willing to put a few hours of time in exchange for a guaranteed (i.e., not contingency) fee of, say, about $500. Which is worth it if you win $1000. But are you willing to part with that $500 if you lose? Anyhow, might be worth it to have a sit-down with a lawyer; initial consults like that are usually free.

    Alternative #2: It's not unusual for a lawyer get a prospective client who wants to take something to small claims court, but the amount at issue is simply too low to make it practical (to either lawyer or client) to hire a lawyer. What I'll sometimes do is offer them a 1 hour office session, at an affordable fee, in which I'll take the client through the hash, go thru everything, coach them on how to handle the case in small claims court, give 'em a few tricks up their sleeve to anticipate and handle this or that curve that might get thrown at them, etc., etc. Then they're more prepared (and thus confident) than just winging it like a layperson, but they don't incur much of a legal fee. I've had a number of clients that have been quite happy with that.

  7. Driver1

    I'd like to see her explain this pic... :P

    My God... those pants??? What the hell was she thinking? :S

    :D:D:D



    I can't tell if you realize it's a photoshop. The :P makes it ambiguous. ;)
    But for everyone's benefit:

    Right Wingers Circulate Photoshop Fake of Young Hillary Clinton With a Confederate Flag

    And if anyone doubts that source, there's this from Time/Life Magazine online:

    LIFE With Hillary: Portraits of a Wellesley Grad, 1969 (Scroll thru the photos. You'll find it.)

    Quote

    My God... those pants??? What the hell was she thinking?:S



    Wellp... I imagine she though she was in college in 1969.

  8. billvon

    > You guys are equating it to business, and in business there are more than two
    >people making important legal and military decisions just fine.

    Right, but as of now all the legal apparatus surrounding marriage assumes one "other" person. That would have to change. And since there are literally hundreds of cases where that assumption is made (for taxes, educational loans, survivor benefits, visitation rights, medical decisionmaking etc) it would be a lot of changes. Not to say it can't be done, it would just be somewhat difficult.



    Broadly speaking, many of those examples are not much different than the rights and privileges multiple siblings already have vis a vis their mutual parents, or vice versa, and those things are generally doable. So when you cut thru the bullshit, most of it really is more about attitude and convention than practicality. Justice Roberts ignores that perspective.

  9. lawrocket


    What to do? I'm beginning to think that martyring all of them is becoming a more necessary thing.



    Are you willing to send your children to do that? Because I'm not willing to send mine.
    I'm not willing to send my money over there, either. All that does is enrich the Halliburtons of the world, validate senior officers who chose a military career and need an enemy, and not keep our children even a bit safer in their beds.

  10. headoverheels

    ***
    By the way, am I mistaken in thinking that the term "the State" is sometimes used to refer to the government as a whole, both Federal and State?

    Don



    That occurred to me also. When I searched through the text of ACA, it does not seem that the use of "the State" refers to the Federal government.

    In this context, no, it would not mean the Federal government, only a state's government.
    FWIW, modern federal statutes in the US generally would not refer to the Federal government as "the State"; that's more political science-speak than it is federal statute-speak.

  11. lawrocket

    ***

    Quote

    SOme think words have meaning. Others think they can be disregarded.


    What do you mean by that?



    I have no issue with....

    It was a one-liner, actually. ;)

    That said, very interesting post, thank you.