His costs? Or total costs, including what AOPA (and other?) orgs have spent?
His costs IF none of the other organizations had been involved.
His channel is rather small with about 50k average views per episode … thats not much at all, certainly not nearly enough to live off of .
I think you may have him confused with someone else. I just looked it up, a video up for 4 hours has over 5k already. I saw videos listed with over 500k vies, he has about a half million subcribers. His is probably the biggest of the backcountry aviation content channels.
Here are his most recently videos. Average is more than 50K, but definitely nowhere near "quit your day job" money.
$30k? lol. Maybe through the ALJ stage (and that's a big maybe). Setting aside who is paying and who might be working for super-reduced special rates, probably $100k in incurred attorney time at least. $30k would be an unbelievable bargain (I can't hardly draft and file a single appellate brief for $30k).
You're assuming facts not in evidence.
If AOPA spent any more than his dues I wouldn't really agree with the spending.
It was only a 60-day suspension until he appealed.
Yeah… when the revolution finally comes ( left , right , does not matter from which side ) lawyers will be right there in front of the line for the gallows , right behind politicians
… they and the system they have crated makes everything more painful and expensive , even flying ( i.e insurance rates )
Insurance premiums would indeed be much lower if they denied every claim without recourse.Yeah… when the revolution finally comes ( left , right , does not matter from which side ) lawyers will be right there in front of the line for the gallows , right behind politicians
Arnold’s legacy.
The problem really is not with insurance companies but with the system where just about every potential mishap, often regardless of circumstances, can represent a potential liability and thus needs to be insured and included in the overall cost/risk assessment.
One reason AOPA jumped in was a recurrent procedural issue. The NTSB’s procedural rules require it to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “to the extent practicable.” Historically, the NTSB has given lip service to this requirement, arguably viewing “practicable” to mean, “when we feel like it,” and in a way that only favors the FAA . Palmer’s case raises those issues. It was the opening argument at the Court of Appeals hearing.
If he’s a PPS member, he get what any PPS member gets. A certain number of hours of attorney time paid by the program through the NTSB process, not AOPA’s direct involvement in the litigation. AOPA’s direct participation comes when it sees an important issue that is raised by the case but has broader application and importance.
Even more reason that AOPA didn't need to spend dues money on him.
Unless you are referring to the procedural issue I mentioned (and IMO it was a lousy case to raise it in), you will have a lot of disagreement on that statement (which has been beaten to death in other threads)
I agree that Trevor Jacob took it much farther, but I think both were driven by the same motivation ($).
That's what Jacob said. It's not what the FAA, the ALJ, or the NTSB concluded based on the evidence. This has been beaten well beyond death in two other threads.
The FAA isn't unchecked, and no one's suggesting it should be. Palmer has already appealed to the NTSB and lost. I just hope his attorney isn't working for free, as some have speculated. There's nothing worse than a pro bono client who lies about the facts of the case.
Absolutely. Administrative, civil, and criminal law should be treated the same as far as judicial proceedings and standards of proof. To convict someone in a criminal case, a jury (or judge, if waiving a jury trial) must unanimously agree that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. To find someone liable in a civil case, a majority of a jury must find culpability by a preponderance of evidence (51%). Under administrative law, an employee of the prosecuting agency can sustain the action by a preponderance of the evidence. At least under civil law it’s usually not the government as plaintiff.
I find almost everyone who likes to channel Shakespeare on lawyers changes their tune dramatically as soon as they need legal services. YMMVYeah… when the revolution finally comes ( left , right , does not matter from which side ) lawyers will be right there in front of the line for the gallows , right behind politicians
Doubtful. Much like a doctor you don’t really ever want to use a lawyer. You use them when you have no better alternative.
