Daniel Bernath News

Matthew said:
I just read down a little further - he said when he does a dog rescue flight he duct tapes the dog's paws together so when it lays unrestrained on the right seat it doesn't push on anything it shouldn't. This guy has "genius" written all over him.
Click to expand...

It's worse than that. On one flight he had trouble controlling the dog and was prepared with a pocket knife to kill the dog in the cockpit. Seriously. Keep looking through the threads on sportpilottalk.com and you'll find the comment.
 
bullwinkle said:
It's worse than that. On one flight he had trouble controlling the dog and was prepared with a pocket knife to kill the dog in the cockpit. Seriously. Keep looking through the threads on sportpilottalk.com and you'll find the comment.
Click to expand...


I think I saw that. He said he was ready to "deal with the problem".
 
Chrome won't open it either. Too much malware.

Duct taping a dogs feet is animal cruelty.

Takes all kinds to make a world I guess .... :loco:
 
txflyer said:
Chrome won't open it either. Too much malware.

Duct taping a dogs feet is animal cruelty.

Takes all kinds to make a world I guess .... :loco:
Click to expand...

Agreed......

Anyone who would do that is "less then sane"...:mad2::mad2:.......:mad:
 
txflyer said:
Chrome won't open it either. Too much malware.

Duct taping a dogs feet is animal cruelty.

Takes all kinds to make a world I guess .... :loco:
Click to expand...

If someone publicly admits to duct taping a dog's legs/paws, could they be prosecuted for animal cruelty?
 
Bob Noel said:
If someone publicly admits to duct taping a dog's legs/paws, could they be prosecuted for animal cruelty?
Click to expand...

It would be hard, I think. Without any other proof of cruelty, it'll probably be considered hearsay, and any good defense lawyer would get the case dropped.
 
JB1842 said:
It would be hard, I think. Without any other proof of cruelty, it'll probably be considered hearsay, and any good defense lawyer would get the case dropped.
Click to expand...


Well then, Bernath would be in for a fight then...
 
JB1842 said:
It would be hard, I think. Without any other proof of cruelty, it'll probably be considered hearsay, and any good defense lawyer would get the case dropped.
Click to expand...

Statements against your own interest are an exception to the hearsay rule. If I admit to you that I murdered my wife (DISCLAIMER: My wife is alive and well as of this time), you would be able to testify to the fact I had said that.
 
JeffDG said:
Statements against your own interest are an exception to the hearsay rule. If I admit to you that I murdered my wife (DISCLAIMER: My wife is alive and well as of this time), you would be able to testify to the fact I had said that.
Click to expand...

So when he types something like, say, maybe this:

"My plan is this: 2 souls are NOT going to die today, but one might. If I can't control you, then I shall cut your throat, you'll go limp when you bleed out and I'll move you over to the left side and land the airplane (to the horror of the 3 kids waiting to see their new dog Bry). (FBO chick says "if you have to do that DON'T land here with the kids waiting-traumatize them for life. Old pilot later says to me, "if you stuck her with the knife you only extended her life a little as a rescue dog as they were going to stick her with the needle if you didn't bring her here)"

Followed by:

"Lesson learned-I duct tape big dogs front legs and have them leashed to the right seats headstand."

Then it isn't hearsay?
 
JeffDG said:
Statements against your own interest are an exception to the hearsay rule. If I admit to you that I murdered my wife (DISCLAIMER: My wife is alive and well as of this time), you would be able to testify to the fact I had said that.
Click to expand...

Depends on where/how you make that statement. If you are testifying to what is posted on the internet, and not statements made to you directly, it is hearsay.
 
Last edited:
Matthew said:
So when he types something like, say, maybe this:

"My plan is this: 2 souls are NOT going to die today, but one might. If I can't control you, then I shall cut your throat, you'll go limp when you bleed out and I'll move you over to the left side and land the airplane (to the horror of the 3 kids waiting to see their new dog Bry). (FBO chick says "if you have to do that DON'T land here with the kids waiting-traumatize them for life. Old pilot later says to me, "if you stuck her with the knife you only extended her life a little as a rescue dog as they were going to stick her with the needle if you didn't bring her here)"

Followed by:

"Lesson learned-I duct tape big dogs front legs and have them leashed to the right seats headstand."

Then it isn't hearsay?
Click to expand...

He wrote all that?

Gosh golly, nan never heard of a portable kennel?
 
There is so much I could say after reading those threads, but...

Sure glad I don't have to share the air with this guy (medical is dead for now). I know I don't know everything there is to know about flying. He doesn't. But he thinks he does. :eek:
 
JB1842 said:
Depends on where/how you make that statement. If you are testifying to what is posted on the internet, and not statements made to you directly, it is hearsay.
Click to expand...

Don't need to testify to that...it's a written record, just need to establish he wrote it.
 
Bob Noel said:
If someone publicly admits to duct taping a dog's legs/paws, could they be prosecuted for animal cruelty?
Click to expand...


I don't know, but if he did it to my dog, he could be crucified and have fire ants applied to his cods .... :yesnod:
 
JeffDG said:
Don't need to testify to that...it's a written record, just need to establish he wrote it.
Click to expand...

And to establish that he wrote it, you either need both lawyers to stipulate to it, or be established by testimony.
 
CT4ME said:
Flying Light Sport... no medical needed. Flew NW to Florida in the last couple weeks.
Click to expand...

True, but even a light sport needs to be pushed around on the ground and I've got a herniated disc pushing on a nerve that says "don't even think about it". When I finally get this under control it will be back to the AME for a physical and then back in the air.
 
An uncorroborated admission to a crime is not sufficient for prosecution. You'd need additional admissible evidence to prove the case.
 
I gots it!

We get ___ _________ to negotiate an ironclad verbal agreement with _______ _______ for __ months of free advertising on ________ . ____ with no obligation, of course, accompanied by another ironclad verbal agreement to provide editorial content with observations, tips, stories and experiences and most of all, expert reviews of Light Sport aircraft, as supplied by the renown aircraft broker ______ ________.

Win, win, win.
 
The Court dismissed Bernath's case against Flight Design and others "with prejudice" meaning that Bernath cannot re-file it nor, of significance, can he refile it by acting as a class representative. The only thing he can do is join a class action if one is ever brought on behalf of a class of plaintiffs by another class representative, which will probably never happen.

Buh bye...

Here's a copy of the order:

Bernath_Order_01.jpg


Bernath_Order_02.jpg
 
Ouch!


I guess the judge is restricted from using words such as 'suck' in his orders.
 
register@teamandras.com said:
The Court dismissed Bernath's case against Flight Design and others "with prejudice" meaning that Bernath cannot re-file it nor, of significance, can he refile it by acting as a class representative. The only thing he can do is join a class action if one is ever brought on behalf of a class of plaintiffs by another class representative, which will probably never happen.

Buh bye...

Here's a copy of the order:
Click to expand...

Don't worry, he has photoshop so he can make it say whatever he wants.
 
I like how the court mentioned that he was filing "pro se" and not as the awesome lawyer he claims to be.
 
This guy is flying an RV-12 now and posts occasionally over on VAF. It's all I can do to keep my mouth shut. It really irritates me that a Vans aircraft is associated with him now.
 
airguy said:
This guy is flying an RV-12 now and posts occasionally over on VAF. It's all I can do to keep my mouth shut. It really irritates me that a Vans aircraft is associated with him now.
Click to expand...


I saw his posting over there too..... I had to really bite my tongue and not say a friggin word about his "past"....:redface::redface:....:(
 
JeffDG said:
I like how the court mentioned that he was filing "pro se" and not as the awesome lawyer he claims to be.
Click to expand...

The judge probably arrived at that conclusion after reading his filings.

He may just not be admitted to the federal courts.
 
"No man is completely useless; he can always serve as a bad example."
In SO many ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top