Lawsuit Madness - OMG

Status
Not open for further replies.
My problem with the picture of the fuel cap is that those stains look just like the fuel stains when someone has overfilled the tanks. They look nothing at all like the remnants of fuel being forcibly expelled from up and out of a tiny vent hole, that would result in atomizing the fuel into a fine mist, thereby leaving virtually no trace behind on the wing.
1. Fuel tube guage showed fuel,
2. Fuel graduated stick showed fuel,
3. No fuel marks on port side wing,
4. Fuel level was check 4 minutes earlier or so.

(as for having people make accusations about me. I see that is only evidence that you have nothing to say. I have been a member of the California Bar for 30 years w/o discipline. I got a restraining Order against the judge in State Court after he attacked me. Accusations by my ex wife (25 years ago) were investigated and found to be unfounded and none of that has anything to do with Flight Design's deadly defect that they knew about, were ordered to warn pilots about but Flight Design refused to warn pilots of the deadly design defect, did not instruct on how to handle it and their F U attitude when caught red handed.
People like me are the reason people like you can fly safe. I never give up and Flight Design will be a changed organization after this is all completed.)
 
danielabernath said:
(as for having people make accusations about me. I see that is only evidence that you have nothing to say. I have been a member of the California Bar for 30 years w/o discipline. I got a restraining Order against the judge in State Court after he attacked me. Accusations by my ex wife (25 years ago) were investigated and found to be unfounded and none of that has anything to do with Flight Design's deadly defect that they knew about, were ordered to warn pilots about but Flight Design refused to warn pilots of the deadly design defect, did not instruct on how to handle it and their F U attitude when caught red handed.
Click to expand...

Most of your lawsuit is based on your own statements, your moral character (or lack thereof) is right at the center of the case.
 
What is the timeline for this suit getting to court?
 
Even if Flight Design's defect brought me down the amount of fuel in my tank had no bearing. Please recall that the same thing happened to a Flight Design CTSW driver with EIGHT gallons in his tank.
Which is hearsay cobbled together from some internet postings.

NTSB report is what is called "Judicial Notice". The jury in the Bernath v. Flight Design case will hear all about the 8 gallons in the crashed CTSW from fuel starvation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_notice

Once again, I am pleased to be able to educate so many people about their rights under the law.
 
What is the timeline for this suit getting to court?
Click to expand...
Years, is my guess.

I'm more interested in whether Flight Design can sue in German court (it's a German company, right?) under German/EU rules for libel, rather than as a counter-suit. I don't know much about that though, other than that libel in England is treated very differently than here in the US.
 
Most of your lawsuit is based on your own statements, your moral character (or lack thereof) is right at the center of the case.
My moral character is just fine, thank you, having been an officer of the Court for 30 years and passed the equivalent of a top secret clearance for Homeland Security after 9.11. In any case, if Flight Design tried to say that I was lying (about what?) I'd invite your attention to impeachment of a witness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment
and
motion in limine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_in_limine
 

What is the timeline for this suit getting to court?
Years, is my guess.

I'm more interested in whether Flight Design can sue in German court (it's a German company, right?) under German/EU rules for libel, rather than as a counter-suit. I don't know much about that though, other than that libel in England is treated very differently than here in the US.

All statements made in official proceedings or about official proceedings are privileged against defamation lawsuits.
TRUTH is a defense of a lawsuit for libel (and I have always told the truth).
FD would have to prove that I lied (I didn't) and I'd be pleased to show that everything I said is the truth. Once again, I am pleased to be able to educate you on the law.
 
Originally Posted by cheap weenie View Post
What is the timeline for this suit getting to court?
It's going to be a while.

After they all stopped laughing, the folks at the courthouse started taking up a collection to buy Abby Normal another airplane so that he could again try to kill himself.

This is another of those anonymous tough guy postings on the internet. I don't do that. I stand by what I've said and my name is Daniel A. Bernath, my address is 10335 sw Hoodview in Tigard Oregon and my phone is 503 367 4204
and to all the internet tough guys-what is your name, address and phone number?
 
I was actually curious when it will be in court. Do you know?
 
Hi Dan,

I was wondering if you or others could explain a couple of things based on your experience with the CTSW?

How did any significant quantity of fuel “splash out” through a tall vent tube? How tall is that tube?

Looking in the maintenance manual, here’s an exploded view of your CTSW’s vented fuel cap which illustrates its use of “vent tube” or vent pipe:

CTSW_Vent_Tube.jpg


I find it difficult to believe that “abundant” amounts of fuel would have “splashed out” through a long, narrow, upward extending tube. It’s pretty clear that the whole purpose of the tube is to let gasses escape, but not liquid, so long as the plane remains sunny side up.


Was your fuel cap correctly "aligned" per your checklist? If not, what happens?

I also understand from reading that it’s critical to have the vent tube facing forward. In fact, the POH referenced in your complaint includes a pre-flight checklist that specifically requires you to make sure the fuel cap is “secure” and that the fuel tank vent tube is “aligned.”

In the photo in your complaint, however, the vent tube does NOT look at all “aligned” (say at 12 o’clock), but rather looks cocked off to one side (say 10 o’clock):

Bernath_CTSW_Right_Wing.jpg
 
danielabernath said:
to all the internet tough guys-what is your name, address and phone number?
Click to expand...

I can't think of a single reason that I would want you to have my name or phone number.

If you can find a competent pilot, though, you're welcome to fly down here and try to convince me that you're not the idiot that your own statements paint you to be.
 
danielabernath said:
All statements made in official proceedings or about official proceedings are privileged against defamation lawsuits.
TRUTH is a defense of a lawsuit for libel (and I have always told the truth).
Click to expand...
My understanding is that here in the US, your belief that you were telling the truth is enough of a defense*, but that in some other (EU) nations you must prove the truthfulness of the statement itself. Which can be time consuming, and expensive.

So, you've said that the airplane has a deadly design defect repeatedly, and others have explained that this works as designed, functions as physics would suggest, and that this is something that should have been covered in your training. Now, will a court in Deutschland agree that this is a "design defect" that can be termed "deadly" (after all, you experienced it and yet you're not dead), and if not is your assertion in international media to the contrary actionable?

I honestly don't know, but I think it's an interesting question.

* Actually, my understanding is that the side making the accusation of libel/slander will need to prove that you knew your statements were not true, but I ain't no lawyer.
 
Last edited:
cheap weenie said:
I was actually curious when it will be in court. Do you know?
Click to expand...

As I said, it will probably be a while. It depends on a number of factors, such as case load and finding a judge who doesn't personally know Abby or of his reputation.

The judges who do know him or know of him know that when the case goes against him, he's going to accuse them of misconduct, prejudice and the Heartbreak of Psoriasis.
 
danielabernath said:
My problem with the picture of the fuel cap is that those stains look just like the fuel stains when someone has overfilled the tanks. They look nothing at all like the remnants of fuel being forcibly expelled from up and out of a tiny vent hole, that would result in atomizing the fuel into a fine mist, thereby leaving virtually no trace behind on the wing.
1. Fuel tube guage showed fuel,
2. Fuel graduated stick showed fuel,
3. No fuel marks on port side wing,
4. Fuel level was check 4 minutes earlier or so.

(as for having people make accusations about me. I see that is only evidence that you have nothing to say. I have been a member of the California Bar for 30 years w/o discipline.
Click to expand...
Except for being suspended for over a year
danielabernath said:
I got a restraining Order against the judge in State Court after he attacked me.
Click to expand...
By misleading an officer of the court calling the Judge a "co-worker" and not saying he was a judge.

You were also found guilty of disorderly conduct in that event by a federal judge. How'd your anger management course go, by the way?
danielabernath said:
Accusations by my ex wife (25 years ago) were investigated and found to be unfounded and none of that has anything to do with Flight Design's deadly defect that they knew about
Click to expand...
But they speak to a pattern of someone who has a tenuous association with the truth.
 
SoloEqs said:
As I said, it will probably be a while. It depends on a number of factors, such as case load and finding a judge who doesn't personally know Abby or of his reputation.

The judges who do know him or know of him know that when the case goes against him, he's going to accuse them of misconduct, prejudice and the Heartbreak of Psoriasis.
Click to expand...

I wanted to hear it from him. His silence implies he does not like the answer he would have to give.
 
danielabernath said:
NTSB report is what is called "Judicial Notice". The jury in the Bernath v. Flight Design case will hear all about the 8 gallons in the crashed CTSW from fuel starvation.
Click to expand...

You might want to do some education yourself. NTSB reports cannot be admitted as evidence in civil matters. They are privileged documents, so good luck with that!

Now your statements to the LEO about having a 1/2 hour of fuel, then knowingly taking off in violation of 91.151, those are entirely admissible.
 
Have we gotten any answers as to how much was in the right tank after the accident? I don't care about some picture showing old residual fuel on top of a wing from a previous filling. I want to know how much was showing in the sight gauge or actually drained from an NTSB investigator. Of course this guy is going to say there was an "abundant" amount of fuel coming out after the accident. Appears to be not definitive evidence of this however.
 
Velocity173 said:
Have we gotten any answers as to how much was in the right tank after the accident? I don't care about some picture showing old residual fuel on top of a wing from a previous filling. I want to know how much was showing in the sight gauge or actually drained from an NTSB investigator. Of course this guy is going to say there was an "abundant" amount of fuel coming out after the accident. Appears to be not definitive evidence of this however.
Click to expand...

I've offered cash on the barrel head for each ounce more than unusable but he doesn't have the cojones to take me up on the offer.
 
Velocity173 said:
Have we gotten any answers as to how much was in the right tank after the accident? I don't care about some picture showing old residual fuel on top of a wing from a previous filling. I want to know how much was showing in the sight gauge or actually drained from an NTSB investigator. Of course this guy is going to say there was an "abundant" amount of fuel coming out after the accident. Appears to be not definitive evidence of this however.
Click to expand...

What part of "I had enough fuel" don't you understand? :D
 
I've offered cash on the barrel head for each ounce more than unusable but he doesn't have the cojones to take me up on the offer.
OK, heres the offer. You drink Avgas in the amount that was usable, including what spilled out onto the wing and I'll pay you $10,000 for each gallon that you drink.

But as you are an internet hero, I don't even know your name, address, phone number. We'll have an expert witness estimate as to how much fuel spilled out plus what is in the tank after a 4 minute flight after having approximately 30 minutes of fuel left.

For everyone who believes a CTSW uses up 3 to 4 gallons of fuel in four minutes, please raise your hand.
*For everyone who thinks that a sloppy line ape spilled fuel on the top of the wing and not usable fuel squirted out, raise your hand.

*For everyone who thinks that the Light Sport curriculum includes this fuel starvation issue raise your hand.
*For anyone who thinks the CAA DIDN'T ORDER Flight Design to warn pilots about this design defect and instruct on how to work around it, raise your hand.
*For anyone who has an explanation as to how a CTSW with 8 gallons in one tank suffered fuel starvation (because he didn't have 30 minutes of fuel after his final destination), raise your hand.

The lunatic fringe keeps going around in circles. Read the complaint and all will be answered. www.aspecialdayguide.com/bernathresume.htm As for Flight Design who had a design defect that they knew about but refused to warn about, who failed to instruct, who failed to warn, hey, get out your checkbook and be glad I wasn't killed. As a multi millionaire lawyer, if I was killed my widow would own Flight Design.
 
Last edited:
bartmc said:
What part of "I had enough fuel" don't you understand? :D
Click to expand...

Lol! That's the problem. It's his word with no concrete evidence to support his claim. Only thing we do know is the quantity of fuel (3-4 gals) he admitted to taking off with was a FAR violation. The CAA advisory placard won't hold water either. That's like saying you need a placard saying to monitor oil pressure, or DG precession or one that says to update your altimeter setting throught flight. You'd have no room on the panel because of useless common sense placards that everyone already knows.
 
Lol! That's the problem. It's his word with no concrete evidence to support his claim. Only thing we do know is the quantity of fuel (3-4 gals) he admitted to taking off with was a FAR violation. The CAA advisory placard won't hold water either. That's like saying you need a placard saying to monitor oil pressure, or DG precession or one that says to update your altimeter setting throught flight. You'd have no room on the panel because of useless common sense placards that everyone already knows.
None of what you say is true or makes sense. You are not a serious person, out to help the general aviation community. I won't respond to middle school comments (hereinafter MSC) or statements that are not true (assumes facts not in evidence or FNE). And I won't respond to internet heros and experts who refuse to state their names and expertise (hereinafter IHE) Read the complaint.
 
Last edited:
danielabernath said:
Lol! That's the problem. It's his word with no concrete evidence to support his claim. Only thing we do know is the quantity of fuel (3-4 gals) he admitted to taking off with was a FAR violation. The CAA advisory placard won't hold water either. That's like saying you need a placard saying to monitor oil pressure, or DG precession or one that says to update your altimeter setting throught flight. You'd have no room on the panel because of useless common sense placards that everyone already knows.
None of what you say is true or makes sense. You are not a serious person, out to help the general aviation community. I won't respond to middle school comments (hereinafter MSC) or statements that are not true (assumes facts not in evidence or FNE). Read the complaint.
Click to expand...

You took off in direct violation of 91.151, a regulation put in place to prevent you from doing exactly what you did. It's true and it makes sense to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. You have provided nothing, nada, zip, zero, zilch to make anyone believe otherwise other than "your word" that you didn't do nuthin' wrong and "your word" doesn't seem to hold water fuel.
 
Has anyone looked up any NTSB reports on the other FD fuel starvation accidents? I'm curious: 1) Are there any reports? and 2) What did the NTSB determine as probable cause?
 
danielabernath said:
My moral character is just fine, thank you, having been an officer of the Court for 30 years and passed the equivalent of a top secret clearance for Homeland Security after 9.11.l]
Click to expand...

Given DHS propensity to hire felons for their TSA division, I wouldn't put much stock into their clearance process.

Isn't it also true that the Oregon bar turned you down due to the pattern of ethical troubles that seem to follow you around ?

As this seems to be a contest for you: I am licensed in multiple states and are able to get licensed in any state I choose.
 
JeffDG said:
Why don't we all take up a collection to get a placard that reads "Don't let me fly" and put a string on it, then we can send it to our "lawyer" friend and have him wear it about his neck, as a warning to anyone who might rent or sell a plane to him?
Click to expand...

Here's your sign. :)
 
Matthew said:
Has anyone looked up any NTSB reports on the other FD fuel starvation accidents? I'm curious: 1) Are there any reports? and 2) What did the NTSB determine as probable cause?
Click to expand...

I was wondering the same thing. I just spent a few minutes trying to find anything about the mythical 8 gallons of fuel starvation accident but can't find anything.
 
Velocity173 said:
Lol! That's the problem. It's his word with no concrete evidence to support his claim. Only thing we do know is the quantity of fuel (3-4 gals) he admitted to taking off with was a FAR violation. The CAA advisory placard won't hold water either. That's like saying you need a placard saying to monitor oil pressure, or DG precession or one that says to update your altimeter setting throught flight. You'd have no room on the panel because of useless common sense placards that everyone already knows.
Click to expand...

But for our "lawyer"'s negligence in taking off without the legal minimum amount of fuel, no accident would have occurred.
 
Dan, you still have not answered when you expect to see this in court.
 
danielabernath said:
So you're not going to explain how you were in compliance with 91.151?

1. I was in compliance. Read the facts.
2. Even if what you allege is true (it isn't) it is irrelevant to Flight Designs egregious conduct. Again a Flight Design CTSW suffered crashing fuel starvation with EIGHT GALLONS in one tank.
Click to expand...

But your suit specifically relates to the aircraft you were flying, not to another aircraft with which you do not have first-hand knowledge. Not allowed to bring in alleged facts not in evidence.

Some of us have gone to law school, myself included. Many on this board have gone to law school. Many are currently practicing. Many have not been denied the ability to practice due to lack of moral character as documented by the State of Oregon.

Above statements are facts. They cannot be disputed.
 
This guy deserves to be banned. He only answers the questions that can be answered by circular, pointless finger-pointing. Anything that gets down to specific facts is either ignored or deflected by off-topic demands for names and numbers.

Purely an attention-whore troll.
 
Last edited:
danielabernath said:
I truly hope you don't get a red cent **if that occurs I will be happy that the NTSB has a discussion with Flight Design as to why they did not follow through on the CAA order to warn CTSW drivers as they did for the European pilots.

.
Click to expand...

1. The number of clicks/visits to a website is irrelevant and not a meaningful statistic.
2. The FAA is not beholden to CAA nor is it required to adhere to CAA rules nor can it dictate rules to the CAA.
3. The CAA is not beholden to FAA nor is it required to adhere to FAA rules nor can it dictate rules to the FAA.
4. Flight Design is not required to comply with FAA rules for aircraft that are flown exclusively outside USA.

International law that can be mandated only by treaty and the CAA & FAA cannot enter into treaties.

Oh, by the way, which CAA do you keep referring to?

And if you're so insistent, why are you still here? Obviously you have no regard for any opinion offered here, nor any request for verified proof (aka the Facts) that the amount of fuel when the aircraft finally came to the unexpected stop there was sufficient fuel to adhere to 91.151

It is not sufficient to cite the POH, proof of fact must be provided.
 
Last edited:
register@teamandras.com said:
Bernath_CTSW_Right_Wing.jpg
Click to expand...

Anyone who has ever overfilled a tank a bit will recognize that stain as an overfill stain. In flight, fuel escaping the filler cap will stream straight back, not spread sideways and forward, too. That stain isn't from a cap leaking fuel in flight. Not one bit. Besides, a leaking cannot totally empty a tank unless it has rubber bladders. The suction can't get at fuel that is below the cap level; all it can do it lower the atmospheric pressure in the tank.

Dan
 
Last edited:
jtheune said:
I was wondering the same thing. I just spent a few minutes trying to find anything about the mythical 8 gallons of fuel starvation accident but can't find anything.
Click to expand...

I couldn't find any reference to Dan's repeated assertion either. Certainly such an incident/accident would have an official report somewhere. He wouldn't make something like that up, would he? After all he is of such high moral character that they won't even let him play lawyer in Oregon.
 
danielabernath said:
Most of your lawsuit is based on your own statements, your moral character (or lack thereof) is right at the center of the case.
My moral character is just fine, thank you, having been an officer of the Court for 30 years and passed the equivalent of a top secret clearance for Homeland Security after 9.11.
Click to expand...
So did Snowden.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top