Hello, JR;

I am confused. Your response almost looks like you hadn't read either what Carl Maroney wrote or what I did in my response.... Let me quote.

First Carl Maroney's note from your post:
------------------------
Insurance coverage for all members and clubs utilizing the Torrey Pines
Glider port site, along with the City of San Diego, has been temporarily
suspended by AMA's liability insurer, Royal Insurance Company. This
suspension of coverage is the result of serious allegations by Glider port
Flight Director, David Jebb over his interpretation of violations of the AMA
National Safety Code at the site. The suspension of coverage will remain in
effect until Royal Insurance Company is fully satisfied that any resumption
of RC Glider flying at the site will be in full compliance with the AMA
National Safety Code and that the code is properly enforced.
------------------------

Perhaps I am missing something here, but what do YOU see in Maroney's note that indicates any further action on ANYBODY's part is inappropriate?

Now, let me quote from my response:
------------------------
September 16: Sandy Frank posts a copy of the e-mail that AMA sent to members who registered e-mail addresses. As I recall, it was intended that they were to send 50,000 each week until all of the membership had been covered. I am not sure if that continued. IMPORTANT POINT: It was AMA HQs that did this mass e-mail.
------------------------

As I SAID, Sandy's actions were NOT original actions! As I SAID, AMA HQs initiated the letter writing campaign via a mass e-mail to the memberships.

Even IF Sandy was in contact with Maroney, there is NOTHING in the information you posted that would lead you to the idea that the letter writing campaign was 1) not proper, nor 2) anything that can be attributed to Sandy Frank. Apparently AMA HQs felt the action was appropriate, and in all likelihood Carl Maroney participated in that decision. So what does this have to do with Sandy Frank?

JR, given other posts you have made here and elsewhere, it is apparent that you are trying to build a case to support whomever gets the unlucky opportunity to run against Sandy in the D-8 election next year. I suggest you cast about elsewhere since this issue isn't. My timeline and explanation are facts, and no amount of twisting will change them. As I said before, why beat this issue to death when it is definitely water under the bridge?

Regards,

Bill Lee