[JoeF]

Recreation Risk Retention Group, Inc. Tue, Apr 25 2017, 6:09:10 am

This topic thread could be used for a 2017 study of the Recreation Risk Retention Group, Inc., a Vermont-filed corporation.
Masterful understanding of the entity is a target. Discussion might help obtain clarity for many persons affected by the entity. Fuzzy or false beliefs might be moved aside by the study.
==============================

A start:

Code: Select all

http://tinyurl.com/RRRGgeneralLINKS

http://tinyurl.com/RRRGgeneralLINKS

What is it?
What it is not?
What does it do?
What laws must it respect when it does things?
What is its exact history?
What text emanates from it officially?
What text emanates from it unofficially?
What errors has it made, if any?
What are the effects of its actions?
Where might it be going?
What is the precise list of its debtors?
Exactly what is its relationship with other businesses and persons and corporations?
What persons or entities will it be paying back loans? When and how and by what instruments?
Are its minutes public?
When or if a corporate member of the RRRG makes an error in application of the RRRG, then what happens?
Etc.
Offer up your study questions. Help seek clear answers.

[JoeF]

A similarly posted topic at Oz Report was "locked" within hours of posting, so that pilots/members could not respond to the study project. Why would Davis/Scare "lock" the topic? Within one day there had been 64 viewings of the topic. In the same timeframe at Hanggliding.org forum there were 192 views. So, a rough estimate is that Jack's topics are getting three (3) times more reading action than Davis/Scare topic set. In the same timeframe, this similar topic here in USHawks has 19 views. Will Davis unlock the topic and let the RRRG be studied? Does he enjoy this attention of locking and unlocking tension? Davis/Scare did not write any personal note to me about their action of locking the topic. Of course, he has the right and power to run his forum the way he wishes; and they do.

===================================

To post on topic:
[ ] The RRRG is a corporation that could vanish at any moment while recreational hang gliding passions may persist in individual people. How might the "vanish" occur? What are the many ways?
[ ] Energy into RRRG has some effects on the rise or fall of energy over advantaging hang gliding via states' recreational-use-of-lands' protection of landowners? Use not the the protection and perhaps lose its worth. That is, is the RRRG putting blinders over the minds of landowners and over hang glider pilots to result in a habit that does not include obtaining permissions to use lands via the special statute that protects the landowners?

[eagle]

Racket (crime) Recreational Sport Licencing and liability Insurance
A racket is a service that is offered to solve a problem, such as for monitoring flight, licence fee's and insurance that is not needed, or that would not otherwise be needed if the Business ride & instruction did not exist.

Conducting a racket is racketeering.
Particularly, the potential problem may be caused by the same party that offers to solve it, although that fact may be concealed,
(with the specific intent to get paid for services not needed)

The racket protect the City, Business and Instructors from lawsuits and insurance claims, then collects their money for monitoring lic, insurance, and normal recreational use
The racket exists as both the problem and its solution and is used as a method of extortion.

Racketeering is often associated with other organized crime
Various examples of common racketeering activities include, but are not limited to:

- A protection racket is a form of extortion whereby racketeers offer to "protect" property from damage in exchange for a fee, while also being responsible, in part or in whole, for the property damage.

- A fencing racket is where stolen goods are (indirectly) sold back to their original owner.
- A numbers racket is any unauthorised lottery or illegal gambling operation.
- Money laundering and other creative accounting practices that are misused in ways to disguise sources of illegal funds.
- Kidnapping
- Murder-for-hire
- Bribery
- Mostly-extreme cases of academic dishonesty, such as in the Atlanta Public Schools cheating scandal
- Loan sharking: Distribution of unregulated and "under-the-table" loans given on terms which are unlikely to ever be paid back
- Manufacturing and distributing counterfeit products
- Cheque fraud ("paper hanging")
- Check kiting
- Arson
- Insurance fraud
- Embezzlement
- Drug trafficking
- Extortion
- Prostitution
- Human trafficking
- People smuggling
- Tax evasion
- Bookmaking
- Arms trafficking
- Truck hijacking
- Car hijacking
- Cigarette smuggling
- Mail and wire fraud
- Securities fraud
- Mortgage fraud
- Witness tampering
- Violent Pay us and shut up or else groups
- Corrupted City Contracts

[Rick Masters]

RRRG should always be in green text - the color of money.

Because an insurance scheme is placed on top of a State Recreation Laws that already limit liability, the additional liability protection becomes redundant.
Therefore RRRG can only mean

Redundant Regulation of Recreational Gliding

Joe points out that the RRRG could vanish at any time.
This is because the RRRG has a primary function of providing insurance for activities which are NOT protected under State Recreation Laws.
Or am I wrong?

Surely there has been a healthy discussion of this on the USHPA, er, forum?
No?
How about on the top secret USHPA proxy Ozfuscate Report?
No?
Maybe on the USHangPAgliding.org?
[Place photo of us hang pagliding here. "Hang pagliding" is the new normal to some.]
I hear the trumpets blowing...
No. Only one forums seems to discuss the RRRG with the healthy dose of cynicism it deserves.
The US Hawks Hang Gliding Association forum.
Use the search term RRG to explore.

[JoeF]

Eagle is onto something.

Hang gliding in United States, every state now: Recreational-use statute protects landowners. This is a statute situation ripe for racketeering by such as USHPA and similar efforts. Like stopping the training of cursive writing, students will lose the flow of cursive journaling and communicating; the flow will be lost. We need polite cooperative faithful communications for recreational launches; leave no trace; refrain from reformatting lands; practice the gift that the states have produced. Rackets will soak up all energies, if followed.

Hang gliding in United States under FAA: no license, no medical, no ratings, no badges, no insurance, no certification of craft, no certification of schools. But FAA wants hang glider users to stay safe and follow traffic rules; FAA wants hang glider pilots to stay informed and to regulate self. THEN: Racketeers see opportunity in all this free flight. Hey, "I will protect you everywhere" says one racketeering movement; I will certify this and that; I will close out all those that I feel are troublesome; I will control communications so just my message gets out; you, operator of wings will be protected in my nest. Just pay me here, pay me there, pay me for chance to restate what I already stated. Pay me by donation while I loan in to make things look like a Big Movement while I pay myself back after all have been duped into giving funds belonging to their children." Not one penny for the pilot's body; not one penny for others in the duped system. And for all the circus: the landowner is still unchanged: he or she is still not liable if the conditions of the statue are met; however, if the landowner starts to get too involved with the organized racket, the conditions of the statute might be lost. "Depend on me, I will protect you; and if you do not join this situation, then you are OUT; Out, I say!" Hence historic little Dockweiler cannot find a way to let me high jump with a wing unless I join the racket, something normally repugnant to public recreation when seen in full light without blinders; but when the blinders are cemented by buddy fragrance, the racket keeps inroads to the public trust.

RRRG Recreational Racketeering Requiring Goods, Inc. ? Yes, who are the debtors that will be paid back their funds with funds from the peasants? Complete detail list? Any interest?

RM found well: Redundant Regulation of Recreational Gliding

How to soak up the energy from the dream to fly and spend it on what is not needed: USHPA has its formula for doing that under a protection system. Eagle is onto something! Could a true racket be unfolding for the recent 10 to 15 years? How many paraglider wings and harnesses are forecasted? RM counts now 1,564 or so PG fatalities. Not a blink from guardians where guarding is not needed. Recommended: Every HG pilot: do not any longer buy into the scheme; practice the art of communications needed to win special individual permissions for your launches while under the state's statute that guards the permitting landowner or agent; presto, you launch. Once in the air, you are FAA matter; fly safely, respect the FARS and weather and all others.

The Eagle has landed in USHawks forum. The Eagle and RM are onto something. May our open studies find resolutions for fairly expressing free flight.

[Rick Masters]

County of Los Angeles
Department of Beaches and Harbors
13837 Fiji Way
Marina Del Ray
CA 90292

Dear County of Los Angeles,

It has come to our attention that, while hang glider pilots are charged to use Dockweiler Beach, enthusiasts of other sports are not. We are therefore submitting a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) for concessionaire for the following activities which are presently not covered under the current regulations:

Biking
Diving
Fishing
Surfing
Swimming
Volleyball

All these activities have produced greater accident numbers than hang gliding at Dockweiler Beach. Therefore, to be equitable and fair, we propose requiring each participant to buy insurance from us to use Dockweiler Beach facilities, using the same model required for hang gliding. Because we are self-insured, it will be necessary for each participant to buy a term of membership in our corporation. We will, of course, ignore California Recreation Law, which holds your County harmless, and maintain the pretext that insurance is necessary for all activities taking place on Los Angeles County premises. The extra money will help us to provide a living wage for the people we hire to regulate these activities. Any who refuse to buy insurance will be turned away or arrested by Los Angeles County police on our complaint. We will, of course, be free to establish our own rates.

Sincerely,
Predatory A. Hole

cc: ACLU

- reposted from another US Hawks forum thread -

[eagle]

Extortion
The obtaining of Money or property from another induced by contract, threatened not to speak, by force, violence, or fear, or under color of official legal right (fear of loosing flight licence and or issuance, under false report and discrimination).

Under the Common Law, extortion is a misdemeanor or felonious, consisting of an unlawful taking of money by a government officer.
It is an oppressive misuse of the power with which the City contract is enforced by a (public leaseholder) officer.
Most City jurisdictions have statutes governing the collection of park fee's for use,..it is Lease contract corruption & extortion that broaden the common-law definition.
Under such statutes, any person who takes money or property from another by means of illegal compulsion may be guilty of the offense.
Extortion by a City Leaseholder or private person. under some statutes, a corporation or association may be liable for extortion.
Either Way,... The city is finally liable for allowing the leaseholders damages and actions

Extortion by Public Officers
The essence of extortion by a public officer (leaseholder) is the oppressive use of official position to obtain a fee.
The officer (leaseholder) falsely claims authority to take that to which he or she is not lawfully entitled. This is known as acting under color of office.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For example,
Gliderport employee who collects money to monitor a recreational pilot park use, collecting for normal public free flight park use.. is extorting money under color of office (leaseholders authority by city contract) The victim, although consenting to payment, is not doing so voluntarily but is yielding to official authority under a prearranged corrupt city contract .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Therefore with the cites consent under their city contract make the City Ultimately responsible and liable
There are few ways in which a public employee commits extortion.

1. The employee collects a park use fee not allowed by law and accept it under the disguise of performing an official duty of park management
(unlawful & illegal) In this case the victim must at least believe that he or she is under an obligation to pay some amount.

2. A daily fee or an Annual pass for site use. The crime is committed regardless by an employee unaware of the corrupted enterprise to victim and or public
3. A threat of violence, punishment, false reporting, false arrest, fear or loss for speaking out or exposure.
4. Fear of flight safety violation, negligent operation with intent.
5. The recreational user may be unaware that they are a victim of a public racketeering crime

Finally, extortion may be unknowingly committed by the employee taking a fee for services. Moneys must be collected by one within the employees to constitute extortion by a corporation or association .

Looks like our city needs a Mayor that won't let the public get burned
We need new laws preventing city assets and contract corruption.

Ahhhh, the Law of Exposure.jpg (7.61 KiB) Viewed 9490 times

please excuse my multi editing TyPOS

[JoeF]

Nice work, Eagle !
=======================

============================
International Risk Management Institute, Inc. (IRMI) glossary for RRG
"An insurance company formed pursuant to the federal Risk Retention Act of 1981, which was amended in 1986 to allow insurers underwriting all types of liability risks except workers compensation to avoid cumbersome multistate licensing laws. An RRG must be owned by its insureds. Most RRGs are formed as captives and must be domiciled onshore, except for those grandfathered under the 1981 Act."
=====================

[ ] So, would it valid for Davis to declare, "I own an insurance company, the RRRG." ???

[ ] How might an individual hang glider pilot become a fellow owner of the RRRG in equity with other owner-insureds, especially without having to agree to the morality and philosophy of one or more of the other fellow insureds-owners who may hold to a morality that is repugnant to another of the owners? Is there any force of law to open the door to individual co-owners of the RRRG so that a citizen exposed to similar risks is not singled out uninsured, if willing to participate in the ownership equitably? For instance, BobK, was expelled from one of the insureds, the USHPA (one of the many owners of the RRRG; could BobK by force of law be offered an opportunity to be a co-owner-insured of the RRRG without having to join membershipwise one or more of the extant co-owners? I get a gut feeling that the environment could result in an open legal door for BobK to become a co-owner of the RRRG. Similarly for myself; I am a conscientious objector to morality, mission, and bylaws of the USHPA which is one of several of the owners of the RRRG, but my activity has me be exposed to the kind of liability for which the RRRG was allowed to insure. There are many more co-owners than the USHPA, each with their own identity, some non-profits and some for-profits. Maybe there is some fine print in the federal law that allows RRGs to form that protects discrimination against individuals on illegal or unconstitutional grounds; maybe some expert knows this answer already. I get a gut feeling that an RRG must be fair in its wrap and reach over an activity for which it has for the reason for its existence under federal permission.

Toward the above, I am fuzzily studying yet and found what may or may not apply, so caution here: "(d) Which does not exclude any person from membership in the group solely to provide for members of such a group a competitive advantage over such a person;" USHPA pointedly did not want BobK to compete using USHawks; I am getting a gut feeling that the RRRG could by force of law be made to open an equity offer to BobK and JoeF each separately for co-ownership of the RRRG. Lawyer help is needed here for clarification. Anyone?

I am getting more gut feeling that the RRRG likes operating in California; I am betting that the California Insurance Commissioner would want to hear BobK's story. And I am betting that the Commissioner would help open the door for BobK to be a co-owner of the RRRG without having to marry the poor-acting USHPA. And the equity buy-in might even be zero to respect the poor acting of USHPA, but at most an equitable buy-in respecting one person among the thousands of persons who are co-owners via the various policies being written by the RRRG for the for-profits and for the non-profits. It seems un-American for a monopoly permitted to exist by the federal government to outcaste a fair individual exposed to the same activity liability which is the target of the RRG that is the RRRG. Correct me if I am not seeing something correctly. Some of my gut feelings are stemming from reading in the following document: http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=48.92&full=true
and
http://www.naic.org/documents/prod_serv_legal_ris_bb.pdf
Sure wish I had a good legal fund to go after what seems right. I will do the best I can with my pen and prayer.

It might unfold that USHPA will be court-ordered to open up an insurance-only membership where a person is not signing into the morality and mission of the USHPA beyond the RRRG's activity. I am a hang glider pilot since at least 1954 depending on one's view of things; I expose myself to the kind of liability which is the focus of the RRRG; yet on moral grounds I refuse to be a mission-bowing member of the USHPA; so an insurance-only deal for inclusion in the RRRG might be a solution that a court might insist upon. Or something similar to such arrangement. A monopoly over insurance for an activity protected by the federal law and state of Vermont law probably has fine print that will force equity in my case and Bob's case and others in similar situations relative to the private association that is USHPA. I smell unfair competition, unfair practices, and a breaking of the purposes of the LRRA (The federal LRRA, which was enacted by Congress in 1986, amended and expanded the Product Liability Risk Retention Act of 1981.)

In the handbook I linked: "The NAIC, in this Handbook, does not take a position as to the ultimate legality or utility of
different state approaches to interpretation of the LRRA" I wonder how California interprets the LRRA for RRGs?

In the linked handbook, it seems an RRG must, among other things, respect or live up to:

• Laws regarding deceptive, false or fraudulent acts or practices (See Section
3902(a)(1)(G) of the LRRA);

===========
This caught my eye:

As emphasized in the report of the U.S. House of
Representatives Subcommittee on Oversight and Examinations of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, entitled Failed Promises (the Dingell Report), state regulators must be ever vigilant in
financial solvency regulation. RRGs and PG insurers are no exception. Since the LRRA was
enacted in 1986, RRGs and insurers that write coverage for PGs have experienced their share of
financial failures.
As with all insurance company insolvencies, the causes leading to the financial failures vary.
Even in the best regulatory environment insolvencies cannot be totally prevented.

Better get BobK hang gliding at Torrey, so he has less time to be sure that the RRRG follows the law precisely, I'd suggest to USHPA. I am getting more gut feeling that the RRRG is not going to be fair to third parties, the claimants; but fairness to the claimants is strictly important from the federal LRRA viewpoint; RRGs are permitted to exist only on the basis that the RRG is fair to the insureds co-owners and the claimants. The more time I have hang gliding at Dockweiler, the less time I will have to post things about the RRRG. If I were the USHPA, I'd open up an insurance-only membership and get Bob and Joe onboard for that and get the two busy hang gliding and off the keyboard and telephone.
===========

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_retention_group

[JoeF]

I definitely do not yet understand the RRRG and the related LRRA.
I read the following:

"Liability insurance is the only type of insurance coverage that can be written by a risk retention
group and purchased on a group basis by a purchasing group under the LRRA. Furthermore, the
LRRA limits the liability coverage that can be provided or purchased to commercial liability
lines, and excludes personal lines insurance as well as workers’ compensation insurance. "

How then does the policy that RRRG gives to its various member-owners, one being the USHPA,
get to cover an individual HG pilot's need to face a claimant? How would non-commercial SallyHGlider face a claim against her for her landing on and ruining a roof of someone's house? SallyHGlider wanted coverage for her personal problem: the roof; she wanted insurance for such third-party needs; she is a personal kind of person. I am probably showing my low insurance education. But if the LRRA allows RRGs only to write "to commercial liability lines, and excludes personal lines insurance ..." then I am probably not yet understanding something or the RRRG is doing monekey-business or both

[JoeF]

The one handbook tells about RRGs:

3. ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICE
The state of domicile should consider the RRG’s ability to provide geographically
widespread services including underwriting, claims handling, response to consumer
questions and consumer complaint handling.

Well, the edges of the RRRG might be such as Davis and as editor of USHPA mag. Both cut off communications.
My note to the RRG about the meaning of one of their paragraphs of advertising has not received an answer yet.
So far, the grounds are not looking nice. All are invited to ask the RRRG polite and fair questions. How does one put a question to the RRRG ??????
Post the answers here in USHawks forum for all in hang gliding to read and study; thanks.
Recreation Risk Retention Group, Inc.
126 College Street, Suite 400. Burlington, VT 05401.
P: (802) 383-1541

Code: Select all

info@recreationrrg.com
Send your questions to that email. By law they are to respond to consumer questions. We are consuming hang gliding.