dbcisco

And the rest of the documentation including the 2009 return which you seem to want to ignore to make the AMA right and me wrong.
My beliefs are based on a large volume of documents posted throughout this thread yet you seem to want to hang everything on one.
BTW, there was lots of interesting things in that if you bothered to examine it and all the other documemnts cited.

bradpaul

I see people are re-writing history again........ The SFA flied suit against the AMA and lost. That bankrupted them.

Brad

dbcisco

No use trying to convince the AMA fanatics. Almighty AMA is always right.

theriddler33872

hey kidepoxy your right they can lie and show false data but thats were it gets interesting ..... if a mistake or a false record is made and someone caught it then they have the right to bring it to someone or everyones attention .

warbird alot of us here are on different sides of the fence the "almighty AMA'ers" will come after you if you speak out against them but i've been saying it for a while and get flamed for it all the time, which is there should be more then one choice other then just the AMA !
and as you'll find the almighty AMA'ers have there standard respones .

some act as if it's blasphemy to speak out against or to try and prove wrong doing against the AMA those are the blind faith followers that question nothing and remain silent .

804

My Feedback: (1)

You've been able to convince a few fools here.
But...

You come out of basically nowhere, start the accusations,
admit you have never been to, belonged to, or flown at a club,
declare you have absolutely no use for AMA, other than you paid
your membership, presumably for the right to come here and criticize the
organization you knew next to nothing about ( you have been corrected so many
times on several items, you surely have learned something), and I seriously doubt
you have ever been to Muncie, talked to anyone there, or have met anyone who even works for AMA.

Now then, why should anyone be convinced of anything you say?

theriddler33872

something to think about i've asked different questions and have heard some say 'if the AMA was to do something like that we'd drop the AMA "
which raises a question of loyalty in my mind and what if there was another choice something better out there then what you still going to be with the AMA ...................
what if what db is saying turns out to be true (i'm not saying he is or he isn't) then what ?
do you still preach the AMA can do no wrong or does it change how you look at the AMA ?

instead of just saying he's a lier or he's just out to do harm to the AMA.............PROVE he's 100% wrong !

i know by now these are questions the almighty AMA'ers will over look or flame me for .

i'm not a fool (i'm still in the undecided)but you prove my point so thank you ...........................................
and i've never been in the AMA because of some of the ones i've meet and the ones that are on this forum that act "almighty"

dbcisco

Funny how I got this:



A few days after I recieved this:

dbcisco

I bet not a single one of you who called me a liar will come forward and apologize.

mschneider2005

My Feedback: (34)

That's awesome!

theriddler33872

oopps now you've gone and done it.
quick hit the deck i can see from here there is smoke raising it's the "almighty AMA'ers" there coming for you ..........................................

Luchnia

My Feedback: (21)

You think they have 70 virgins on the other side? j/k of course, don't set me on fire [X(]

The organization (AMA) should have no problem being open and honest and what is there to hide? If there are "shady" practices it will get them at some point just like it eventually gets all of them.

Just recently, in Norfolk, VA there was an issue of a "quasi" government/state org that had an employee that was paid for 12 years and never once showed up for work. I think the figure that they paid that individual over the twelve years was around 480,000 dollars. Now the whole thing is a big deal and making news everywhere. [link]http://articles.cnn.com/2010-08-27/us/virginia.paid.for.no.work_1_city-attorney-taxpayer-funded-employee?_s=PM:US[/link]

Just goes to show, anything can happen if things are not kept on the "up-and-up" for all to see.

Nitro777

OOOOOOOH all you doubters are busted now

theriddler33872

[:@]now you've done it ![:@]

the sad thing is even the up and up organizations always have something to hide

i remember in virginia that time there was DMV employees selling drivers licences it's not just localized to virginia it happens all over our great country and it's not localized to the AMA either

Nitro777

DB get you a lawyer and shut them up with their threats.  If they can't prove your "defaming" comments then you have nothing to hide.  Bunch of cry babies.

804

My Feedback: (1)

I don't think I've called you a liar.
But I do think what you are doing is beneath contempt.

Why on Earth would someone with no previous involvement
with AMA suddenly feel the need to do this?

theriddler33872

it's a big pill to swallow for the faithful .

i believe and db can tell me i'm wrong but he was involved with the AMA at one time i remember from another post some time back ......

dbcisco

Soon after I joined I read the AMA documents and listened to what others were posting. Then I did some research to find out the truth.
Why did I do this? Because I am an honest, taxpaying, loyal, citizen.
When I see something suspicious I speak up and inform the authorities.
Seems to be a rarity these days.

dbcisco

I knew about the AMA for many, many years and never joined. Then I thought the PPP was a great way to open up the hobby and wanted to get involved with some educational and scientific activities. So I joined under the PPP in the spring and will go for open membership on renewal.
Why don't I quit? Because I think the principles the AMA was founded on are excellent but it has lost the path. I want to see it get back on the right path or die trying.

mschneider2005

My Feedback: (34)

Bravo!

bradpaul

Thank you DB for posting the letter confirming it is real. You probably need to have your friends here start a dbcisco legal defense fund, but good luck raising any funds from this group. Words are cheep but sending in real money may be a issue for the "regulars". Better to let you be the lightning rod.

Some have championed the cause of the 1st Amendment believing that free speech comes without consequences.

Here is a challenge for those posters....... on Monday go into work and tell your boss what you REALLY REALLY THINK OF him/her. Hold nothing back as your "freedom of speech" protects you. Let the forum know how that works out for you!

Brad

Ted Boz

My Feedback: (2)

Seems like I've heard the phrase "real change" once before..... hmmmm
Cry all you want, but your shooting from the hip with "facts" in a significant number of posts over the last few months finally got the attention they/you deserve. BTW I doubt if you qualify for an EC post.

dbcisco

Isn't there some kind of laws about intimidating and threating witnesses?

Arbo

That the AMA has people that monitor forums so they can waste time and money to contact their lawyers to send such letters, is a shame.

It's one guy on an internet forum for heavens sake, not the evening news or Larry King. Quit wasting our money on such trivial poo and concentrate on getting
in the eye of the public and growing the membership.

Seems like a bit of personal grudge taken a bit over the top.

Ted Boz

My Feedback: (2)

?????????????????????????????????????????

bradpaul

Since the issue of the SFA v AMA has come up once again here are the facts:


SFA/AMA Lawsuit Update AMA National Newsletter October 1993

As most are already aware, the AMA is currently involved in a lawsuit that was filed late last summer. Inquiries about the suit have been made from time to time by AMA members. Often asked are the questions "Why is the suit still pending?" and "Why is it the parties cannot settle their differences?" It has been the policy of the AMA to avoid commentary regarding specific details of the litigation upon instructions from our attorneys. That policy must, of legal necessity, continue in effect. However, we have been advised it would be appropriate to publish a status report. Therefore, we are responding to the most frequently voiced questions.

Mediation: At the request of the AMA, the parties met face-to-face this past June in an effort to see whether the differences could be ironed out with the assistance of a court-appointed mediator. Talks broke down when SFA refused to abandon its position that any resolution would require the AMA to pay it several million dollars.

Subsequent events: Following the mediation, SFA retained new lawyers and petitioned the trial judge to appoint a private attorney who would charge the parties $250 an hour to resolve procedural disputes that would otherwise be handled by the judge. Lawyers for both sides then became very active in preparation for an August hearing that was scheduled to be held on a motion for temporary relief filed by SFA. The hearing did not occur, however, because SFA's attorneys decided at the last moment not to go forward.

Legal expenses: The AMA (as well as the AMA officials and employees who have also been sued by SFA) are being defended in this case under a policy of insurance issued by Aetna. However, prior to the insurance company's decision to defend the suit, AMA had to assume the burden, which has amounted to over $100,000.

Trial date: The case is scheduled for trial by jury in Dallas County, Texas, on April 12, 1994. The court in which the case is pending schedules many cases for trial on the same day, so there is no way to know whether this case will be tried as scheduled or whether some other case will end up being selected for trial in its place.

The leadership of AMA knows only too well that the business of advancing our hobby is not served by expensive legal battles of both time and money. The number of hours AMA employees have had to devote to this has been substantial and resulted in slowing service to clubs and individuals in certain areas.

What interests of the AMA and its members can possibly be served by paying millions of your dollars that aren't owed, just to terminate a battle with someone else who will otherwise keep on fighting? This is the situation the AMA now finds itself in, which means that barring a radical about-face in the SFA's position, this case is destined to see the inside of a courtroom.

SFA Lawsuit Update January 1996

Sport Flyers Association has settled its lawsuit against the AMA. AMA has been advised by its commercial liability insurance carrier that the carrier's own negotiations with SFA have resulted in an agreement under which the carrier will pay SFA an undisclosed sum of money as a means of cutting off additional fees
and costs in handling AMA's defense. The agreement does not address the counterclaims asserted by AMA against SFA. Also, while the dollar amount of the settlement is unknown because SFA refused to settle unless the insurance carrier agreed not to disclose it to AMA officials, AMA has been informed that the amount of the settlement represents only a fraction of the $350,000 or more which SFA has incurred in legal fees throughout the litigation of this case.
AMA's commercial liability insurance is separate insurance that is provided by a different carrier than the insurance coverage which is provided to AMA's members, clubs, and site owners. The terms of AMA's liability insurance coverage provided its carrier with the right to enter into agreement without regard to AMA's position or its counterclaim. It appears that the carrier chose to exercise that right because it was cheaper than continuing to pay AMA's lawyer fees in defense of the case, not because of any merit to SFA's claims. In fact, the Federal Court Judge presiding over this case has already dismissed several of SFA's claims and entered judgement in favor of AMA as to various others, including SFA's claims for alleged violations of the antitrust laws.
SFA's willingness to give up now on any remaining claims may be explained simply by a desire to claim victory before those claims are also resolved against it. Certainly, if SFA believed the claims against AMA had merit, it would not agree to release them without an agreement by AMA to release the counterclaims that it has asserted.

SFA's Actions During This Lawsuit

Any representations by SFA as to the reasons for settlement of its claims against AMA should also be measured against a host of facts that AMA has not publicized before now because of the pending lawsuit. Court records will show, for example, that SFA is now on the fourth set of lawyers to represent it in the litigation. They will further reflect that SFA's abuses of the legal process have been so numerous that fines and penalties have been imposed upon it by the court and that a federal magistrate judge even made a formal recommendation that all of SFA's claims be dismissed due to such abuses. Government records will also reflect that SFA never filed a federal tax return and that its failure to pay corporate franchise taxes to the state of Texas in 1994 resulted in a revocation of its corporate charter during 1995. By settling its claims for a fraction of its legal expenses, SFA certainly cannot claim a victory from a monetary standpoint. Any claim that it has achieved a symbolic victory is also misplaced, since its pursuit of legal action has accomplished nothing positive for our sport or its participants and its settlement is no reflection of whether
or not its claims had merit. SFA filed a lawsuit and accused AMA of numerous bad acts which it did not and could not prove. At the same time, SFA engaged in a campaign to compete with AMA which was based on numerous false and misleading statements by SFA about the benefits offered by both organizations. In response, AMA has filed a countersuit which seeks to recover damages caused by SFA's false and misleading statements and for attorneys fees which AMA and its insurance carrier have been forced to incur in this case. AMA's decision to continue its pursuit of this counterclaim in the suit commenced by SFA is based on a strong belief that AMA should be compensated for damages, and that the SFA should be held accountable.


Date: March 18, 1997

JUDGMENT IN LAWSUIT AGAINST SFA

Litigation in the United States District Court in Dallas County, Texas
between AMA and SFA has been concluded by entry of a consent judgment in
favor of AMA against SFA pursuant to which SFA is obligated to compensate
AMA for attorneys' fees incurred by AMA in connection with prosecution of
its claims against SFA. The consent judgment also enjoins SFA from engaging
in negative advertising directed at AMA.

SFA made the business decision to accept this consent judgment in order
to end the accrual of attorneys' fees, the attendant distraction from its
core business, and the attendant devotion of its resources, both human and
otherwise, to this litigation. Resolution of the lawsuit also involves an
understanding that neither AMA nor SFA will further comment on the terms of
the consent judgment or circumstances leading to its entry.



May 1999

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION


ACADEMY OF MODEL AERONAUTICS, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
SPORT FLYERS OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL., Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Before the Court is the Notice of Motion to Vacate Default Judgment, filed by Defendants Sport Flyers of America, Inc., and Elliott Janss. The Court construes the Notice as a motion, although it does not contain a supporting brief. After considering the motion and Plaintiff’s response, the Court is of the opinion that the motion should be denied.

On February 5, 1999, the Court entered a final default judgment against Defendants. The Court found that Defendants’ agent for service was served with summons and complaint on December 2, 1998, and that Defendants had not answered or otherwise pleaded.

The Court also found from the uncontroverted facts that, in March 1997, Plaintiff Academy of Model Aeronautics, Inc., and an entity known as Sport Flyers Association, Inc., entered into a consent judgment under which Sport Flyers Association was to pay AMA scheduled payments totaling $124,000 plus post-judgment interest over a three year term ending December 1, 1999. The judgment provided that failure to make any required payment entitled AMA to accelerate the indebtedness and execute the judgment. AMA has not received any payments under the terms of the judgment.

The uncontroverted facts also established that Sport Flyers Association was stripped of its assets, and its principals disappeared from Texas. However, Sport Flyers of America, Inc., operated by Defendant Elliott Janss, continued the business affairs of Sport Flyers Association with the same membership, the same operational procedures, and the same insurance policy as Sport Flyers Association, but free from its former liabilities under the judgment.

From the uncontroverted evidence, the Court found that Sport Flyers of America is a continuation of Sport Flyers Association and that AMA’s evidence was sufficient to support entry of default judgment in favor of AMA in the amount of $124,000, plus post-judgment interest. The Court also awarded AMA reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount of $28,961.75 Along with $6,549.08 for expenses.

In the instant motion, Defendants move the Court to vacate the default judgment on the grounds that they were not properly served and for reasons of good cause and excusable neglect. In support of the motion, Defendants have filed the Certification of Elliott Janss.

First, Defendants argue that they were not properly served with summons and complaint because AMA served the Texas Secretary of State under the Texas Long Arm Statute. Defendants contend that the Secretary is not their agent for service because they have never done business in Texas. However, Defendants admit that they received a copy of the pleadings from the Secretary.

Section 17.044(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides:

The secretary of state is an agent for service of process on a nonresident who engages in business in this state, but does not maintain a regular place of business in this state or a designated agent for service of process, in any proceeding that arises out of the business done in this state and to which the nonresident is a party.

Thus, the Secretary of State’s certificate is conclusive evidence that the Secretary, as an agent for the defendant, received service of process for the defendant and forwarded the service as required by statute. See Capitol Brick, Inc. v. Fleming Mgf. Co., 722 S.W.2d 399, 401 (Tex. 1986). Moreover, service is complete when the Secretary is served, not when the defendant received notice. See Whitney v. L & L Rlty. Corp., 500 S.W.2d 94, 96 (Tex. 1973).

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT


In support of the argument that AMA improperly served the Secretary as Defendants' agent, the Certification of Elliott Janss states that Sports Flyers of America does not operate in Texas and does not maintain an office in Texas. Janss further states that he never had an office in Texas and that he never did business in Texas. In response to Janss’s assertions, AMA has provided the Court with deposition testimony and bank records, which indicate that Defendants did conduct business in Texas. However, Defendants have not filed a reply to AMA’s response and have not attempted to refute this evidence. Therefore, the Court has nothing more than Janss's conclusory statements that Defendants were improperly served under the Texas Long Arm Statute.

Furthermore, the objective of the Texas Long Arm Statute is to provide reasonable notice of the suit and an opportunity to be heard. See Leedo Cabinetry v. James Sales & Distribution, Inc., 157 F.3d 410, 413 (5th Cir. 1998)(citing Barnes v. Frost Nat’l Bank, 840 S.W.2d 747, 750 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1992, no writ)). Because

Defendants admit receiving a copy of the summons and complaint in this case, there is no question that they were given notice of the lawsuit and an opportunity to be heard. Under these circumstances, the Court finds no basis for setting aside the default judgment on the basis of Defendants’ unsupported contention that they were improperly served.

Defendants also move the Court to vacate the default judgment on the basis of good cause and excusable neglect. Courts generally look to three criteria to determine whether to vacate a default judgment: (1) whether the default was willful, (2) whether setting aside the judgment will prejudice the adversary, and (3) whether the defendant presented a meritorious defense. See CJC Holdings, Inc. v. Wright & Lato, Inc., 979 F.2d 60, 64 (5th Cir. 1992). However, the ultimate inquiry is whether the defendant has shown good cause to set aside the judgment. Id.

In the Certification of Elliott Janss, Janss states that he received a certified mailing of the pleadings and that his attorney immediately called AMA’s attorney, asking for an acknowledgment of service for Janss to sign. Janss also states that his attorney never received the acknowledgment of service document and that, because he was undergoing dialysis three times per week, he did not recall when or how papers had been disseminated. However, Janss states that he always understood that he had to be personally served with process.

After consideration, the Court finds that Defendants have not stated good cause to set aside the default judgment. They have presented no evidence of any mistake or inadvertence. Moreover, they admit that they received the summons and complaint, suggesting that they made a conscious decision not to respond to the lawsuit. Therefore, the Court concludes that Defendants willfully did not file an answer in the case or otherwise plead.

Also, the Court finds that AMA will be prejudiced if the default judgment is set aside. This lawsuit arises out of litigation that has been pending since 1992. According to AMA, attempts to enforce the underlying consent judgment have resulted in a search for hidden assets and extensive discovery to gather sufficient facts to bring enforcement proceedings against Janss and Sport Flyers of America. AMA contends that if the default judgment is set aside, Janss will have another opportunity to incorporate in another state, move or hide assets, and otherwise attempt to avoid paying the consent judgment. For these reasons, the Court finds that setting aside the default judgment will prejudice AMA.

Finally, Defendants have not shown that they have a meritorious defense to this lawsuit. They have not provided any facts to suggest that there is a reasonable probability of a different result if the default judgment is set aside. See Moldwood Corp. v. Stutts, 410 F.2d 351, 352 (5th Cir. 1969). The Court has nothing more than Janss’s conclusory statements, which are insufficient to show a meritorious defense. Id. Under these circumstances, Defendants’ motion to set aside the default judgment should be denied.

It is therefore ORDERED that the Notice of Motion to Vacate Default Judgment, filed by Defendants Sport Flyers of America, Inc., and Elliott Janss on March 31, 1999, is denied.

Signed this 20 day of May, 1999.

Robert B. Maloney
U.S. District Judge


August 23, 1999

Judgment In Lawsuit Against Sport Flyers of America, Inc. And Elliott Janss, Jr.


As originally reported in the June, 1997 issue of Model Aviation, AMA
obtained a consent judgment in its favor against Sport Flyers Association,
Inc. After Sport Flyers Association failed to live up to the terms of the
consent judgment, AMA filed suit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, against a new entity called Sport
Flyers of America, Inc., and its owner, Elliott Janss, Jr.

AMA argued that Sport Flyers of America had stripped the assets of Sport
Flyers Association, and that Mr. Janss was continuing the business affairs of
Sport Flyers Association with the same membership, the same operational
procedures, and the same insurance policies as Sport Flyers Association,
while claiming freedom from its former liabilities to AMA under the consent
judgment.

On February 4, 1999 the Court entered a judgment against Sport Flyers of
America and Elliott Janss, Jr. The Court agreed with AMA's claims that
Sport Flyers of America and Mr. Janss fraudulently used Sport Flyers of
America to avoid paying the money Sport Flyers Association owed AMA
under the consent judgment, and awarded $124,000 to AMA. Citing the
complicated nature of the case resulting from the fraudulent actions of Sport
Flyers of America and Mr. Janss, the court also awarded $28,961.75 in
attorneys' fees and $6,549.08 in expenses to AMA.

Sport Flyers of America and Janss then asked the Court to set aside this
judgment. In a five-page opinion dated May 20, 1999 the Court refused to
do so, finding that Mr. Janss and Sport Flyers of America did not present a
meritorious defense to AMA's claims. On June 10, 1999 Mr. Janss filed
bankruptcy, and on June 30, 1999 Sport Flyers of America filed Chapter
11 bankruptcy in U.S. Bankruptcy Court.