AOPA - 4 Directors resign

[brianh]

Gary

I had to look up the definition of sophist, you live by it.

Ms Pagani was also against the strict liability. And, just to show what a turncoat you are, let me quote again from the AOPA Mag - Ms Pagani "A majority of the Board reversed Gaunt's and Lawford's actions ..... AOPA's policy, since my involvement with the Board, has always been to impose the imposition of strict liability .... If however they did conduct any negotiations it was clearly without my knowledge and without the knowledge of the remainder of the board."

What a team player and abider by Board process you are, old boy.

Goes without saying that Ms Pagani, being of the legal profession, knows a little more about the implications of strict liability on pilots and aircraft owners than you do.

I asked earlier in the debate how you expected to operate if elected given the existing no confidence vote. I feel you have summed up the future very well - in the best interests of AOPA - and I endorse your use of "cuckoo" in terms of the way you have (not) acted for AOPA.

Talking of Ms Pagani, how about trying to convince us Bill Hamilton not you was responsible for her resignation. Now the votes are in the mail, another of your fairy stories would add some light humour to this forum.

Before you do, let's also have you organise a comment from a couple of your alter ego multiple identities on this Forum just to soften the ground.

I also alert all readers to the AOPA Mag Jan-Feb 2004 and Ms Pagani's letter which covers 2 pages - ask Gary for a photocopy and why he has not gone her for defamation (ha, ha).

Under it Ron Lawford actually adds some more truth - "Ms Pagani moved Mr Gaunt be removed from the Secretary position. Motion lost. Ms Pagani then informed the Board that she would resign."

Well done Gaz, you ambushed your own A Team queen.

I could go on but it would just generate more sophistry on your part
cheers

[Creampuff]

brianh

I went to the ALAANZ website at: http://www.aviationlaw.com.au/ and could not find a single reference to strict liability. Could you provide more particulars as to the author, date and title of the material to which you referred?

You state that Ms Pagani “was …. against strict liability”. I don’t how many times I have to say this, or how I can say it any more succinctly, other than to quote Ms Pagani’s own words. In her September 2003 President’s report, Ms Pagani said:

…there are a substantial number of [offences] which would, if challenged, properly be found to be offences of strict liability by a court, and to those being the subject of the deeming amendment, I have no objection.

Could you read that twice please? Then read it again.

Ms Pagani stated that in her view, a substantial number of offences in the CARs were already strict liability, and she did not object to them remaining strict liability.

So they’re sitting there in the Senate, they’ve got a notice of motion for the disallowance of some regulations that in the AG’s view merely continue the status quo. We’ve got the President of AOPA saying that she does not object to the status quo in the case of a substantial number of offences. We’ve got a Minister’s letter saying that he will consider in good faith AOPA’s representations on the (still yet unspecified) remainder, and will hold up the passage of Part 61 until AOPA’s position is put and considered.

So let’s be really stupid. Let’s push the notice of motion anyway, thus demonstrating we don’t trust the Minister and that our President really doesn’t mean what she says in her reports. Hell – why don’t we start secretly taping our conversations with the Minister, then publish the transcripts on the internet. That’s gotta be a good way to engender trust and respect within government.

And of course you blame Mr Gaunt for Ms Pagani’s departure, yet Mr Gaunt’s departure is his own fault, yes?

I should note that I do agree completely with one point you made. You state that

…Eugene Reid, AUF President … paid tribute to the work of AOPA on behalf of AUF " particularly Bill Hamilton who looks after AUF at meetings with CASA. If it was not for Bill, the AUF might not be here".

Indeed. What I don’t understand is why the AUF, with its statutory monopoly and regulator in the back pocket, gets to use AOPA members’ finite resources in promoting the interests of the AUF. Perhaps some the 6,000 or so erstwhile AOPA members left because they thought their finite resources were supposed to be used to further their, not the AUF’s, interests.

[brianh]

Creamy

Good try, but not good enough.

I felt I had made my position on debating further with you quite clear when you labelled me as "prejudiced".

I made my declaration - never worked for, or been investigated by, the Regulator - no inherited prejudices in that regard.

So the readers can judge for themselves whether your posts have any inherited prejudice, and why you keep pushing the Regulator and Rory Gauntford position on strict liability, I would value your declaration that you have never worked with or for CASA just to set the record straight. It is not in any way suggesting any wrongdoing if so, merely ensuring that we all know where we are both coming from.

I have a personal view on it, given your long-term approach in postings, but only you can shine the spotlight of truth on it.

[Creampuff]

OK – let’s play the Joey McArthy game

I am not and have never been employed by CASA.

I don’t believe you when you say that you have never worked for, or been investigated by, the Regulator. I think the truth is that you’ve been planted here by the Regulator to discredit GA by posting, in the guise of a member of the GA fraternity, material that casts serious doubt on the character of the sorts of people who comprise the GA fraternity. Just what the Regulator wants the community to believe. Conspiracy!

Now you make a post that says you don’t believe me when I say that I am not and have never been employed by CASA, and that you have never worked for, or been employed by, the Regulator.

Of course, none of this has any effect on the merits of the issues being discussed, but let’s not let the merits get in the way of a good witch hunt.

Why can’t you read what Ms Pagani said, and make an objective assessment of what was in the best interests of AOPA’s members once the Minister had written to AOPA on the strict liability issue? Give it a go – take a deep breath and say it.

And again, if you were capable of objectivity, you would see that in the thread on strict liability, I criticised Mr Gaunt on one point. Indeed, and ironically, on that particular point I compared Mr Gaunt to – guess whom? – Mr Hamilton.

Objectivity – give it a go.

[brianh]

Creamy

Either I have been on drugs or I ask that you withdraw.

You posted "Now you make a post that says you don’t believe me when I say that I am not and have never been employed by CASA".

I must have missed your reply to my question in my post. I just looked again and still cannot find a reply - yet suddenly you assert that you did make a statement to that effect.

Please show me the wounds.

And a magnificent tangential conspiracy theory that I am a CASA plant. How would you like my oath that I have never worked for CASA, AirServices, ATSB, etc - would a Stat Dec do?

Nor have I been employed by any of the above as a consultant or received any remuneration from a firm providing services to them. Now I know you will bite on this, but given that I have been prepared to say that also, are you prepared to expand your comment to include those extra linkages also?

Not being nasty mate, just being pedantic. I may be slow replying, need to get a hose coupling to finish a job so am off for a Big Mac and then to Enzed fittings.
cheers

[Dale Harris]

For gawd's sake, will somebody just friggen shoot this horse?..........

[Garrylous]

BANG!!!!

Horse shot

Besides, the vote is closed, gaunt is either out (and there was much rejoicing) or in, whereby he will be sidelined.

Either way, a small furry marsupial tells me a recent Board decision will see him self-funding any appetite for ailine travel he might have.

Woof!!!

[Frank Burden]

Still five minutes by my watch if you fax it in.

[Woomera]

If the election closes at 1700 AEST, time is now up - on both the election and this bl@@dy thread!!!

If someone wants to post the election results, do so on a new thread, which I will then lock as there will be no point in any further comment.

Woomera