Posts: 5717
Joined: 7/24/2002 From: Hawthorne,
CA, USA Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: airnutguy
I have stayed out of this discusion but the truth seems to be missing. John Casey asked for the Presidents resignation due to illegal activity as defined by the State of Californis Corporation Bylaws. The members have the right to remove any board member at will at any time. John then had his membership terminated. A founding members rejoined the club to help try to get things set properly. He was terminated and his home and wife were threatened. I became involved in an attempt to provide the leadership with a solid understanding as to there failings under the California Corporation code but had my membership terminated. My action were in the interst of getting the THRUTH known by all members. After providing the AMA with first hand documentation as to the inappropriate acts of some members, I was served a termination letter that said "Your continuted participation in the SAM club was no longer desireable" . The last warbird race that I flew in ended with my aircraft and the 2 other members of my team all being "Shot Down" by a member of SAm. He was protected by the board and that is the real truth. Since that date I was told that could no longer enter the event or even pit for someone. But remeber that I was the victim here. The only thing I did wrong was to try to defend myself, my team mates and my business. AND also I am a Hobby Shop owner, does this kind of activity help there club? If you really want to talk FACTS just call me (916) 332-4661 Jeff Weiss
Since you brought it up...what was the Pres. supposedly doing that Casey requested his resignation? A lot of your response doesn't seem to make sense either.
You said,"due to illegal activity as defined by the State of Californis Corporation Bylaws". Bylaws are the corporations (in this case the club). Did he do something illegal or that was not allowed because of the clubs bylaws.
Speaking of bylaws...what are the rules to remove a Pres. from the club? Did Casey go by those rules and did other members agree with him?
The bottom line is if you guys are in the right than I would expect the majority of members to agree with you and vote accordingly. A lot of this just doesn't add up.
Posts: 9
Joined: 11/2/2005 From: Sacramento,
CA, USA Status: offline
I wish we had the oppurtunity to lay this out step by step, but on a forum as this, to much is inferned and not said. The bottom line. The Sacramento Area Modelers are a California Corporation. There are laws that govern how an organization like this must conduct it self by. The bylaws are not in line with California State law. No proxy, no quorum, no first ammendment right to free speach. If the President doesn't like what you have to say he will dismiss you and ajourn the meeting. In fact the "New" bylaws say and I quote "The President shall preside over all meetings. He shall not be held to any Parlimentary procedure and his disisions are binding on all members". This sounds way to much like government by a dictator and nothing I wish to be governed by. The menmbers that make the dicisions are a small minority, about 25, out of what was over 300. But due to the few controling the press, (club newsletter) and those in power influencing the rest of the members, the club is run by these few and held hostage. The majority of the members have turned a deaf ear to the problems or just don't care. The SAM site is the only club in Northern California that has a secure position on its land. All other clubs in our area have terminal leases and will , or have been shut down. These guys will not allow for free expression of its members, They will not allow control Line, R/C cars, Aero Tow gliders , Jets, or Giant scale operation to be developed on "their" site. I really dont' think that this is in the best interest of the hobby, but it does allow their below average acitivity to seem to be the only game in town. The warbird races we use to have were great fun and were attended by hundereds of people. The last race had slightly over 1 dozen spectators, what does that say?
As one of the "regulated" racers, I have an issue with the rules being changed so the "below" average can compete at a higher level than their skill would normally determine. I ran Nelson .40 engines for years and never once had a "control" problem that could be considered a safty issue. The fact that the engine was not throttled made it produce more power. It was equiped with a throttle cut as per AMA Safty rules. The fact that the engine was mush faster than what the others could muster, made it a target for regulation. If you want to compete, then go buy a Nelson to compete or find something better. Any way, it is past history but the record should be set staight. Amyone who cares can call me (916) 332-4661
Posts: 6
Joined: 2/22/2003 From: Galt,
CA, USA Status: offline
You can read the "other side's" opinion from Jimmy Skids and judge for yourselves...
Jimmy could have been a bit more accurate about John's role with the courts. John only filed a small claims suit twice asking for the maximum allowable of $5,000.00 to cover costs to join and travel to a different club for the rest of his modeling career since SAM's board expelled him without membership knowledge or approval.
Jimmy probably doesn’t know these facts, but what actually happened is the Small Claim’s judge came up with a resolution that would, hopefully, appeal to both parties and save the club from paying the suit money even though John’s rights were violated and the SAM board acted in bad faith – this also stated in the finding of the court. The judgment asked the SAM board to reinstate John’s membership. There was a drop-dead date in which SAM’s board could appeal the decision - which they did. (Refer Attachment 1)
The appeal landed the case in the Small Claims Division of Superior Court. Again, with both parties present, the appeals judge was of the opinion that the previous judge had no statutory authorization to order the SAM’s board to reinstate John’s membership. The court only had the authority to grant the amount requested in the judgment – namely $5000. The appeals judge turned to John and asked him what he wanted the court to decide on. John was feeling justified from the previous judgment and no longer intended to empty the SAM coffer. So he replied, perhaps unwittingly, please enforce the judgment of the Small Claims Court. The appeals judge said he couldn’t because the small claims judgment, which asked for reinstatement, was out of their statutory authority. So the case was dismissed. (Refer Attachment 2)
John refiled in Small Claims again, different judge this time, who decided SAM did not have to pay John Casey any money. There was no explanation given by the court for this decision. It’s possible that the decision was based on the testimony of the SAM board representative who claimed John could fly at the site as a “guest” at any time paying the $5.00 daily use fee. I have to chuckle at this when I consider the real mindset of the SAM board as stated in the attached letter. (Refer Attachments 3 and 4)
I'm not sure why Jimmy thinks John lost three times in court, but I'm fairly certain that when Jimmy reads the judgment after John re-filed, he may think this last ruling is a win for SAM’s board and a loss for John. Using that same line of thinking, I would wonder what he would say about another judgment whereby a terminated SAM member doesn’t owe SAM any money because the court had no jurisdiction on this matter. (Refer Attachment 5)
I will post the judgments so you readers that are interested can decide for yourself.
You will also note on the SAMs website, there is a bundle of newsletters missing after June of 2003 when all of these problems were occurring. There was never any mention of the board’s intentions of terminating John in any newsletter. The termination letter John received was never posted in the newsletter. All the judgments were never posted in the newsletter. The private investigators report regarding frequency jamming of opposing member’s aircraft was never posted in the newsletter.
Now for the other issue:
I'm sorry to hear that Tony Pacini and his group no longer attend the SAM races, but I don't blame them for their opinion. The last race I attended was when SAM had instituted the minimum idle speed rule years ago. I know my first thought was that it was a sneaky way to kill off those competitors that had the really hot setup. You have to understand that even though it may be a "safety issue" to keep the unskilled pilot from potentially torquing their plane on take off at full speed, Tony and his group will always targeted because they are way ahead of the curve on this sport. Yes they probably could spend more money and produce an engine that would comply with the minimum idle rule, but then there'd be another rule change later. This has gone on for quite some time to people like Tony, Joe and Bill - and it's not just SAMs that has done this to them. Even the breakout times have changed throughout the years to slow the aircraft down a bit for “safety reasons.” In the Bronze class where John Casey was dominating, the SAM’s racing breakout time was actually lowered by 10 seconds. Couldn’t be for safety reasons that time.
As far as the indemnity insurance for the SAM board, yes this should have been voted on by the membership. The newsletter had actually covered this in the months prior, inviting the membership to “come and have your voice heard” up until December of 2003. I attended the meeting when this was to occur. However, the treasurer’s report noted a $1300.00 expenditure during the previous month. When asked what this expenditure was for, it was learned that the Board went ahead and purchased the insurance without membership approval.
For the moment, the SAM club remains under the same leadership. The dissenters have either moved on to different clubs, gotten out of the hobby, or have been expelled. Since SAM’s newsletter is not a viable source of information regarding these issues, the rest of the membership doesn’t care or remains unaware; but even if they knew the facts would they do anything about it? I don’t know anymore…
Posts: 5717
Joined: 7/24/2002 From: Hawthorne,
CA, USA Status: offline
Sorry but he went to court three times on this and got nothing, I can see how Jimmy thinks he lost three times. The first judge didn't know what he was doing and it doesn't validate everything else that occured because of his questionable ruling.
As for all this discussion of how the rules were changed to discriminate against certain pilots.....It seems these are fun club races and the rules are trying to keep it that way. The fastest way to kill off a class of racing is to make it expensive and have the racers feel they can't compete without a lot of expensive equipment so why bother.
Before you point out how participation has dropped off at these races I say that racing in general has lost a lot of participation in the same time. Our local club races used to attract 50+ participants for the T-6 class and now we are lucky to get over ten. Not much has changed over the years except for the increased popularity of other types of modeling.
It's a really small world we live in and the niche of a local club is very small indeed. Word travels fast, especially if a local store owner is involved and whether or not it was written in the newsletter or brought up at meetings people know what's going on. The mere fact that very few club members have rallied to John's defense tells me he has to except part of the blame for the situation.
Maybe it's time for a mia culpa on his part because people do tend to get over these things and with time personal differances can be patched up. The only constant in these clubs is that things will change if people stop holding grudges and it will take someone to make the first move.
Posts: 6
Joined: 2/22/2003 From: Galt,
CA, USA Status: offline
Hmmmm, Sorry about what exactly???
I know this is going to sound like I'm slamming you, but I'm trying to do this as respectfully as I can because the truth still matters to me. You can shred me later if you wish. But this will be the last post on this topic for me.
I don't know if you realize this, but you're kind of making my point: Jimmy Skids stated John Casey SUED 3 TIMES TO BE REINSTATED and lost all three times. This is simply not true - which is why I posted the actual public records. John initially sought monetary reimbursement. It was the judge who came up with the idea to reinstate him - not John. Evidently, this judge, who by your own description, didn't know what he was doing, was actually trying to bring this to a resolution without costing the club some money. So THERE was the "first move", the golden opportunity for the "mia culpa." But what did SAM's board do, they appealed the decision.
By the way, you may need to clarify the following point: Since Jimmy and apparently you believe John lost all three times, did the board win the first case from a judge who didn't know what he was doing, or did John lose the first case by a judge who didn't know what he was doing?
It's also nice to know that in a really small world, gossip is the preferred method for people who want to be in the know these days. I suppose that's how Jimmy got his misinformation about how many times John sued, and what the suit was for.
I appreciate your candor regarding the warbird racing, the costs involved, and the waning numbers. I know there are many who want to keep it simple and inexpensive and will use the rules of the event to keep it that way. People like Tony realize this thought process exists too, which is why he chooses not to participate in those events. The flip side would be that there are some that think the better the competition the better the sport and those event's rules will reflect that way of thinking. That's where people like Tony will try to compete.
< Message edited by StanleyR -- 11/19/2005 7:50:38 AM >
Posts: 5717
Joined: 7/24/2002 From: Hawthorne,
CA, USA Status: offline
Stanley, That was not a slam at all and I appreciate someone who can maintain a conversation without resorting to below the belt stuff. You are correct that in the first case the club did not win, nobody did. It seems though that John C. never sued to be reinstated, as you mentioned, it is not in the small claims court's jurisdiction to do so.
While gossip shouldn't be the mode to spread information to the club my point there was that owning a shop, John probabley has contact with enough members to get his side out yet few came to his support.
Please feel free to respond as I find it an interesting topic and as long as the discussion is civil there is no reason for all sides to not weigh in. I have no dog in the fight and only am fascinated by club poltics when things go this wrong.
Posts: 2
Joined: 11/19/2005 From: W. Sacramento,
CA, USA Status: offline
For all of the wisdom of John Casey, he is down to hiding in the Christmas trees at the SAM site approximately 150 yards away from the runway as he watches in awe as everyone else has a great flying day.
< Message edited by daven -- 11/20/2005 4:49:26 AM >
Posts: 18
Joined: 10/30/2005 From: CARMICHAEL, CA, USA Status: offline
Thank you Stanley for having the guts to put out the truth about the SAM site. As a founding member of the Sacramento Area Modelers I am now in exile, flying at another club in another city. Why, because I cannot tolerate the manner in which the SAM board is ruling the club.
If you threaten a fellow member at a club meeting, you are still a member in good standing, shout down a recognized speaker at a club meeting and later physically threaten them in the parking lot, you are still a member in good standing. Be accused of shooting down aircraft on several occasions, you are still a member in good standing.
If you go to a meeting and point out things the board doesn't want the membership to know, you are out of the club. If you receive a threatening phone call at your home regarding your points of view at club meetings and then dare to try to play a recorded message of said threat at a club meeting, you are expelled from the club. If you circulate Emails written from a club member where he writes he saw a fellow club member shooting down airplanes, you are expelled from the club. If you see a fellow member shooting down aircraft and report it to club officials, you are ignored and then when your observations finally become known to club members, you are hounded out the club.
I want to believe that the majority of the club would not tolerate these actions, but in trying to inform club members of the what I believe is the truth, they either do not want to hear about it or are afraid they will be the next person to be threatened.
In response to club members questioning the ruling boards actions, instead of being more responsive to the club membership, the board puts forth a new club constitution giving the ruling board more power. This constitution was ratified by a vote of 26 to 1. With a membership of over 160, 27 people show up to vote on changing the rules that restrict the rights of the membership.
I truly wish the majority of the members of the Sacramento Area Modelers the best of luck. Some day I hope to be able to return to the club I help start and for twenty some years was so proud to be a part of.
< Message edited by ponzogeorge1fjmm1 -- 11/21/2005 12:58:18 AM >
Posts: 9
Joined: 11/2/2005 From: Sacramento,
CA, USA Status: offline
I have to say it!!
Why does it always seem that when the truth is presented, it is followed by a warning!!
I see nothing that has been posted as of yet that can be interpeted as a "personal attack"
Each and every point that had been made by Mr. Casey, Mr. ponzogeorge1fjmm, Mr. Stanley or myself, has been fact and has been backed up with documented proof. I think that quailifies these statements as testimony from a particular position.
Printable Version
All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Pylon Universe - RC Pylon Racing >> General Racing Discussion >> RE: Best racers banned in Sacramento 
RE: Best racers banned in Sacramento - 
