aphid

You really are new here! You're Canuckian. Which really means you (and I) will always be interpreted to be just fractionally to the right of all those dirty commies. The colour of our flag? RED! Coincidence? They think not.

That would be great! Any chance you can name a few of the jumpers? Or the photographer/chase-plane? Your recollection of '88 jibes with the conversation Kelly Wolfe and I had about it...

N/A

To the OP: no problem moving it, just let me or one of the other Mods know. As you wish. I'm agreeable.

This has been up on the wall in poster-size at one of my favourite DZ's for many years. I'd like to see the photog receive their due credit, so I've periodically scoured the 'Net to purchase a copy. I have been told (unsubstantiated) this was shot over Coolidge in days past with Larry Hill piloting the DC3. Other than that, I know nothing about it and even less the wild bunch who decided that parasitic-drag is for sissies. Can anybody here flesh-out the bigger story?

Now that's some funny shit, right there. (For the record, I am sympathetic to your statement)

(My apology for resurrecting an ancient thread, but I was hoping to get Andy908's attention, as his account does not accept private messages) Andy, my appeal against US Customs has finally been scheduled 27 months after filing at the District Court and 46 months after the initial incident. I would forward privately a copy of the latest email(s) from my legal-beagles outlining the ACLU will be actively participating on my behalf at the Oral Argument phase as well as the case file# should you care to be interested. John

I'm guessing he won't be touring the US anytime soon.

Well, it appears y'all have another farking problem...

Come on Rob...

Simply because a guilty person is judged as such does not mean their trial is not fair. Fairness is predicated (imho) by an honest and thorough attention to the law. I believe this man will receive that. The only thing that concerns me is the possibility that the Justice Department will levy a litany* of charges; everything from using a WMD and terrorist activity all the way down to jay-walking or other pathetic diversions. John ETA: *the charges at both ends of the spectrum will be a disgusting overreach. The legitimate offenses (again, imho) will be the ones somewhere in the middle.

Buried within this new article was an interesting proposition: "But privacy advocates also want companies to be upfront about what they charge and alert customers after an investigation has concluded that their communications were monitored." When VIP's, business leaders or media darlings discover they've been targeted, then the sh*t might actually hit the fan? The article is about the amount(s) charged by the telecomms to the public purse for surveillance. source: www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/10/government-wiretap_n_3571422.html

No offense meant, but with multiple posts in this thread including the OP, from people in ON, BC and the USA, it's amusing you're the first from AB to finally weigh in. I respectfully acquiesce to your stated first-hand knowledge of the issue.

I was alluding that contrary to leading the polls immediately prior, (significantly IIRC, but I'm receptive to correction), to the most recent 2012 provincial election, her greater failure to win the position of provincial Premier by leading her party to victory, and now seated as the leader of the official opposition. Perhaps defeated was too broad a description, she was just the unwinner. Certainly she should be active in an inquiry, presuming she would undertake it without partisan preconceptions. I would expect no less from the mayor of the town as well as the head of the Provincial Preparedness department. The same said public inquiry the RCMP have already called for? Or would you prefer an additional inquiry?

To cite just one example where this supposition is incorrect, police may indeed enter without warrant or permission to check the homes electrical system. (I'm sure there are likely additional situations, but I'm not a lawyer and don't want to be) "A search may be legal for some purposes and illegal for other purposes. For example, authorities can search a house to determine whether it complies with electrical safety requirements. The prerequisites for a regulatory safety search are low. Preauthorization by a judicial official is not required." source: http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/china_ccprcp/files/Presentations%20and%20Publications/21%20Search%20and%20Seizure_English.pdf It doesn't completely surprise me that a defeated political candidate might seek to gain some traction from this issue. Which I understand is legal and defensible under the terms of our Canadian Charter and further supported by the Emergency Management Act. Also to my understanding, this is legal and defensible within the Canadian Charter. So, they kick a door for the first or second legal search, and during those look-arounds they see unsecured firearms, I could contend that they are also legally allowed to secure them for later return to the owners. "PALs were introduced in Canada in 1995 as part of Bill C-68 as a replacement for the FAC (Firearms Acquisition Certificate) system. Whereas the FAC was only required to acquire a firearm, a PAL is required to both acquire and possess firearms and to acquire ammunition." source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_and_Acquisition_Licence#History To my knowledge, there has never been a grandfather exclusion for owning/possessing weapons prior to 1995. If you have evidence/information to the contrary, that would substantiate your position. Seriously Rob, I'm not blindly defending the actions by the RCMP as I am still waiting to see how this plays out. By the same token, I don't share the paranoia that the RCMP are a just an evil nefarious lot whose sole mission is to take everybody's guns in Canada. You competing at National's this year? John

Now that some of the heated rhetoric and righteous indignation has subsided, the story continues: "In a statement issued last week, the RCMP said officers found that some gun owners had laid out their weapons in plain view as they presumably moved valuable possessions to higher ground. The weapons were tagged for return to their owners." "... the force said the weapons could be reclaimed with the presentation of a possession acquisition licence." * "Alberta Premier Alison Redford... said the RCMP were simply securing weapons, rather than 'leaving them sitting on fireplace mantles in a town that was evacuated.'" And finally, this: "The head of the RCMP is asking for an investigation into the seizure of firearms from homes evacuated during flooding in Alberta" source: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/07/05/rcmp-alberta-gun-seizures-investigation_n_3551584.html * To legally possess, acquire, sell, transport, or transfer a firearm (of any kind) in Canada, this document is required. I don't own any firearms, yet I have one of these licenses/cards. It's really not a big deal. So, I'll still wait and see how this shakes out.

Is the museum funded by the general taxpayers public purse? Has your CSA had a significant impact on the development of USPA or national/global promotion of the sport? Isn't there something in your book about remaining humble and not publicizing your acts? (ref: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6&version=NIV)

We did. It's always good to see Dave and 2FoxWhiskey on this side. Thanks. :)

Relax. This fixes everything. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/06/28/blackout-defense-department-blocks-all-articles-about-nsa-leaks-from-millions-of-computers I don't know why the Europeans are so upset. Even in this webforum, numerous domestic posters have repeatedly posted that foreign sensitivities are of absolutely no import or concern. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/30/germany-bugging_n_3524755.html But, just in case you foreigners forgot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpPABLW6F_A [/sarcasm]

In 2011, the communities of Slave Lake and Athabasca were evacuated because of horrific firestorms. The RCMP secured weapons as well from various homes back then. There was no hue and cry. And a friend of mine indicated he had his returned without difficulty after the month-long crisis ended. Same province. Same police force. Same laws. You may note the subtle difference between describing the police action as "securing" as opposed to "seizing". I suppose that my word doesn't push the emotional hot-buttons though. Hence, I am still comfortable waiting to see how this plays out.

Before jumping on the apoplectic bandwagon about the dastardly RCMP, I think I'll just wait to see how it actually shakes out... “We have seized a large quantity of firearms simply because they were left by residents in their places,” said Topham. The guns will be returned to owners after residents are allowed back in town and they provide proof of ownership, Topham added." source: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/alberta/RCMP+seized+High+River+firearms+from+homes+control/8588851/story.html

I'm no engineer either, but I might be equally concerned at the steering/suspension lines looping so close to the unguarded prop. I guess that's why these are classified in the Experimental category by TC and the FAA.

This occurred at my home airport. This fellow brought this (and his family) to Canada from Florida, and had been doing occasional test flights for the last few months. Without getting into detail, this is a continuing accident-in-waiting. It was also featured last night on The Discovery Channel. It's in this segment from the show: http://www.discovery.ca/episodeList.aspx?sid=13287 If that doesn't work, try this one: http://watch.discoverychannel.ca/#clip951732 This will give you a better idea of just how sketchy the design really is. (It immediately follows the portion about wing-suit proximity BASE in Norway) ETA: photographs I shot from one of it's flights

Start collecting. Better returns than a 401K or RRSP! http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/06/19/wayne-gretzky-memorabilia-shawn-chaulk_n_3466785.html

Hence the reason I told my lawyers to ignore the overture and continue with the litigation. Now, if we could just convince your Federal District Court 9 to hear the damned thing. We're well into month 19 of that part of the effort... Incidentally, Canadians are not typically litigious by nature and I'm sure not seeking any financial compensation. I just would like to see a representative of the enforcement agency forced to look justices in the eye and justify their actions. And then look me in the eye and... apologize... unconditionally.