I agree with you Yr Right.
I thought however in your experience as an expert witness in courts that you would be across who pays for legal representation etc. As you would know if you are called in that capacity by a court then such representation is provided by the court so that shouldn't be an issue for you given your knowledge and experience.
If however you are a lay person that does'nt have the benefit of your exposure in this regard then that's why you or the company you work for have insurance. If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about and your insurance will back you.
If however you knowingly do something wrong and that can be proved that when you did or didn't do it you knew that your actions or inactions would have a life threatening result then problem could possibly belong'em you big time.
As for an individual's choice whether to take due regard to issues of compliance then that is up to them. As you've often stated an individuals choice concerning the safety of loved one's being carried in a poorly maintained aircraft can only rest with the person concerned. It's a choice that would surely weight heavily on anyone's mind. I strongly doubt that any of the posters on this thread would fall into that category.
I'm guessing that Scheduled maintenance as per MR / AD requirements would be a form of proactive maintenance when coupled with SB's across the board as opposed to reactive (unscheduled) maintenance if I follow your drift correctly in which case your quote:
Aircraft maintenance is built on proactive maintenance not reactive.
Is quite relevant and quite accurate I would hope.
Stiky