Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:06 pm
You go Pooner!!!
Down with the weasles who try to steall everything they can by using their lawyers~!
I think the guy was just lucky Pooner doesnt have a temper like a few of us, cause I would have been at that ass's house with a crow bar a crane truckin it back home the same day!
hahahahah!!!!!!!!!!
Down with the weasles who try to steall everything they can by using their lawyers~!
I think the guy was just lucky Pooner doesnt have a temper like a few of us, cause I would have been at that ass's house with a crow bar a crane truckin it back home the same day!
hahahahah!!!!!!!!!!
Sat Feb 16, 2008 6:01 am
noizeedave wrote:You go Pooner!!!
Down with the weasles who try to steall everything they can by using their lawyers~!
I think the guy was just lucky Pooner doesnt have a temper like a few of us, cause I would have been at that ass's house with a crow bar a crane truckin it back home the same day!
hahahahah!!!!!!!!!!
noizeedave, I am not sure how you arrive at that attiude from all of the above posts? or the recommended course of action for Pooner?
I dont think Pooner has a legal or moral right to enter that property and forcebly remove the cockpit, and I do think he should be using his lawyers.
It would seem the basics of the dispute is disputed ownership by Pooner, and disputed ownership and rights of another to sell it to the current "custodian/owner". that "custodian/owner" appears to have purchased it in good faith?
I dont know the real names and individuals involved in this scenario, and in fact have to assume this is all real and true (although obviously someones version cannot be?, and someone's version does seem to be on the nose)
Obviously the information here is not sufficient to make accusations against anyone, however it is possible to make assumptions of outcomes if certain claims made here are true and correct, and recommended courses of actions, (which are not vigilante repossession).
I think Pooner has been very patient and polite in most of the posts in this thread, and that he, and the current custodian/"owner" of the cockpit both appear innocent of any criminal wrong doing from the posts so far.
However if much of the information provided above is true, It would seem that the recent application for belated transfer of registration by the FAA (of an apparantly scrapped aircraft??) would only represent a bit of cute and clever footwork by parties to create some independant and authority to their title of ownership and actions, so as to counter the scrutiny and investigation of the law?
The strength and value of that situation is best tested in a criminal or civil court, rather than the court of internet opinion?
I am too far away from this literally and figuratively, to pass judgement on anyone personally, however based on the information put forward by Pooner it would seem to me there is a likely and strong case for certain parties to be charged with "theft" and with "dealing in stolen property", both with appropriate serious penalties? and for successful civil action to recover costs, time and effort, I hope they get their day in court for every ones benefit, (if not for theirs if on the receiving end).
Pooner and the current "owner" could combine their efforts and resources into a "civil" action against such a party, and I am sure their respective lawyers could collaborate on evidence etc to seek damages.
Pooner and the current "owner" could also combine their efforts to press for "criminal" charges against such a party, based on all of the above, I would urge them to do so.
Serious "criminal and civil" legal threats might finally cause someone to wake up and smell the roses? and stop playing "cute and clever" games, and try to solve this mess to the satisfaction of the injured parties, and most importantly before it proceeds to court under either process?? (and particularly under criminal processes to their own eventual and serious detriment???)
The current line of arguments being put forward for one scenario doesnt seem very convincing here, and I dont think they will be very convincing in court either??? However court is the appropriate place to resolve this dispute, not here on the internet.
Obviously if the evidence supporting the other side of this argument is true / correct and above board, then the rightful owner will be confirmed in court and found to have legally sold the cockpit, with no criminal act, and no common law injury to Pooner, other than him wasting his own time and efforts working on someone elses aircraft.
Without naming the specific individual concerned "Good Luck in court if you think you are right?, and Badluck if you are silly enough to risk it going to court, if you already know you are wrong!
regards
Mark Pilkington
Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:33 pm
Thanks for the comments, fellows.
Perhaps I should have just sucked a little wind through the teeth and took a time out for a beer, but the post from our "Gleeful Gloater" really brought the manifold pressure up and I had to unload before I had a stroke.
Many of you have asked or at least wondered about the status of the cockpit and about the fellow who purchased it and landed in the middle of all of this chaos. I haven't said much about him in these postings as of late, as the both of us are standing around and waiting for this to unfold in a timely manner. By and large we were asked to sit back and be quiet and wait for the investigation to pan out as advised by the detectives of the local law enforcement agency. They were as surprised and disappointed as we were to learn of this situation with the FAA and the transfer of business names on the paperwork in the middle of this investigation.
I need not comment on our next steps, but I can share some data on the cockpit and the fellow who has it on his property. He's a stand-up, straight arrow kind of guy and has always endeavored from the first day after this whole mess hit the fan to make things right. He's a fantastic steward of this piece and he has a lot of admiration and appreciation for it. He made it a point on several occassions to come on out and help me as well - once during the PV move from Chandler to Mesa, and then in moving the old spray tank from the airplane from the hangar downtown to storage for me.
We've become friends during this ordeal, and our focus right now is to clarify a messy deal where one person acted as a profiteer to take something that didn't belong to him and to take money for it from an unsuspecting individual.
The upside - Admiral cockpit right now is safe and sound and protected. Both grieved parties are communicating with one another and get along in a most civil manner. Both agree that this issue - while indeed involving several thousands of dollars on either side - is not about money, but rather about principles and a word that is wholly unfamiliar to the privateer. That word is "honor."
The downside - a local law encorcement branch that can't invest unlimited hours on a theft case. Compound that with the FAA registration tactic as covered in my ranting post it becomes another layer of skin on a big old nasty onion. In the end, it becomes pretty simple - to what degree do you pursue truth, and once you have it, is there really any chance for recourse or redemption?
I won't speak on DW's behalf here (he's our cockpit steward), but from the Pooner's perspective, all of this could have been defused two months or more ago with a simple "I'm sorry - looks like a mistake was made, and what can we do to resolve it?" Actually, let me clarify this - I never did hear that from the middle party in this - the seller. But I heard these very words from the buyer at the onset of our first telephone conversation. Interesting, eh?
Instead - one individual (who was focus of Pooner's wrath last night on this internet community) - wants to perpetuate a falsehood and seeks a way to re-write history to absolve him of any accountability or culpability.
Personally, I think that kind of action is loathesome and I've made it my personal quest to expose it for nothing more than it is.
Perhaps I should have just sucked a little wind through the teeth and took a time out for a beer, but the post from our "Gleeful Gloater" really brought the manifold pressure up and I had to unload before I had a stroke.
Many of you have asked or at least wondered about the status of the cockpit and about the fellow who purchased it and landed in the middle of all of this chaos. I haven't said much about him in these postings as of late, as the both of us are standing around and waiting for this to unfold in a timely manner. By and large we were asked to sit back and be quiet and wait for the investigation to pan out as advised by the detectives of the local law enforcement agency. They were as surprised and disappointed as we were to learn of this situation with the FAA and the transfer of business names on the paperwork in the middle of this investigation.
I need not comment on our next steps, but I can share some data on the cockpit and the fellow who has it on his property. He's a stand-up, straight arrow kind of guy and has always endeavored from the first day after this whole mess hit the fan to make things right. He's a fantastic steward of this piece and he has a lot of admiration and appreciation for it. He made it a point on several occassions to come on out and help me as well - once during the PV move from Chandler to Mesa, and then in moving the old spray tank from the airplane from the hangar downtown to storage for me.
We've become friends during this ordeal, and our focus right now is to clarify a messy deal where one person acted as a profiteer to take something that didn't belong to him and to take money for it from an unsuspecting individual.
The upside - Admiral cockpit right now is safe and sound and protected. Both grieved parties are communicating with one another and get along in a most civil manner. Both agree that this issue - while indeed involving several thousands of dollars on either side - is not about money, but rather about principles and a word that is wholly unfamiliar to the privateer. That word is "honor."
The downside - a local law encorcement branch that can't invest unlimited hours on a theft case. Compound that with the FAA registration tactic as covered in my ranting post it becomes another layer of skin on a big old nasty onion. In the end, it becomes pretty simple - to what degree do you pursue truth, and once you have it, is there really any chance for recourse or redemption?
I won't speak on DW's behalf here (he's our cockpit steward), but from the Pooner's perspective, all of this could have been defused two months or more ago with a simple "I'm sorry - looks like a mistake was made, and what can we do to resolve it?" Actually, let me clarify this - I never did hear that from the middle party in this - the seller. But I heard these very words from the buyer at the onset of our first telephone conversation. Interesting, eh?
Instead - one individual (who was focus of Pooner's wrath last night on this internet community) - wants to perpetuate a falsehood and seeks a way to re-write history to absolve him of any accountability or culpability.
Personally, I think that kind of action is loathesome and I've made it my personal quest to expose it for nothing more than it is.
Sat Feb 16, 2008 6:38 pm
Pooner,
My last law suit experience, though in a business arena, was relatively similar. Although I believed I my company was completely in the right and I had won all of the preliminary rounds, I ended up settling in the end because the legal costs would have been higher than the amount in the suit and it was my company's, not my money.
You probobly know this already but even if you are completely right, the financial risks of the battle are probably too high to justify. That being said, this is one of those situations where I wish you would proceed 'darn the torpedos'.
If the police don't want to persue this, maybe the WIX members can contribute to a Pooner legal attack fund
Good Luck,
Art S.
My last law suit experience, though in a business arena, was relatively similar. Although I believed I my company was completely in the right and I had won all of the preliminary rounds, I ended up settling in the end because the legal costs would have been higher than the amount in the suit and it was my company's, not my money.
You probobly know this already but even if you are completely right, the financial risks of the battle are probably too high to justify. That being said, this is one of those situations where I wish you would proceed 'darn the torpedos'.
If the police don't want to persue this, maybe the WIX members can contribute to a Pooner legal attack fund
Good Luck,
Art S.
Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:18 am
I'm returning this thread to the hanger. As long as everyone remains calm and rational I will leave it. But if it gets out of hand I will yank it permanently