Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Going after overzealous Feds

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Going after overzealous Feds

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Yak-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

brian

Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 643
Location: Sacramento, California, USA

Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:47 pm Post subject: Going after overzealous Feds

OK, there was talk about how to protect ourselves from overzealous

governmental officials. As I read it, the law that protects us and makes

it unlawful for a government agent to deprive us of our rights "under

color of law" is Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, "Deprivation of Rights

Under Color of Law".



The FBI web site



(http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/statutes.htm#section242)



says this about the law:



"This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law,

statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause

to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities

secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.



This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute,

ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be

subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than

those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person

being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.



Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal,

state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful

authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their

lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any

official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be

done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the

performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in

addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors,

Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards,

etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.



Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or

both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use,

attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or

fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death

results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap,

aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse,

or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned

for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."



The key phrase here is in the third paragraph where it states, "...but

also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority..."



The problem one is going to face in court is to get the court to agree

that the federal agent has overstepped his/her bounds when the

definitions and limits are not clearly defined. He/she could argue that

they are operating on good-faith and being conservative in the

interpretation in order to protect the public welfare. Given that almost

no one understands radioactivity and a large portion of the population

reacts in a mindless panic when radioactivity is mentioned, it is going

to be darned difficult to get a conviction on this basis.



OTOH, if one can make a big enough stink, bureaucratic agencies have

been known to throw their own to the wolves to save the skin of the rest

of the people involved. (Example: FBI agent Lon Horiuchi in the Ruby

Ridge shootings.) If you can make this happen enough times perhaps

government employees will start to run for cover and try not to stick

their necks out. That might result in them leaving us alone.



Regardless, this is a very difficult problem. We are reaching a point

where we are going to have to seriously fight back or give in forever.

My belief is that appeasement does not work. Neither does "staying under

the RADAR."



But that is just my opinion.



I wonder if we can somehow get them declared as terrorists. That would

simplify things a LOT.



-- 

Brian Lloyd                         2243 Cattle Dr.

brian-yak at lloyd dot com          Folsom, CA 95630

+1.916.367.2131 (voice)             +1.270.912.0788 (fax)



I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .

- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

- The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List

_________________
Brian Lloyd
brian-yak at lloyd dot com
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)

I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

jon(at)email.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:12 am Post subject: Going after overzealous Feds

I have a friend who's a police officer and a politician and he's been sued

under this statute for political reasons.  It should be very effective in

dealing with FAA types according to my friend because:



a) You sue the person individually, which costs them money to respond.  If

nothing else, this substantially tempers their behavior in the future.



b) They discover that their agency has zero, or possibly negative, loyalty

to them -- everybody around them scatters, ducks and covers.  It reminds

everybody else that once they're one silly millimeter outside their

authority that they're no longer a representative of the FAA, but all

alone in a big field.



c) The suit is resolved in a court typically far outside the influence of

the FAA ... which typically lets a lot of bright sunshine into the

situation, and we all know what a brutal experience that can be for

creatures of the night.  



Jon



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 OK, there was talk about how to protect ourselves from overzealous

 governmental officials. As I read it, the law that protects us and makes

 it unlawful for a government agent to deprive us of our rights "under

 color of law" is Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, "Deprivation of Rights

 Under Color of Law".



 The FBI web site



 (http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/statutes.htm#section242)



 says this about the law:



 "This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law,

 statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause

 to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities

 secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.



 This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute,

 ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be

 subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than

 those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person

 being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.



 Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal,

 state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful

 authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their

 lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any

 official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be

 done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the

 performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in

 addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors,

 Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards,

 etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.



 Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or

 both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use,

 attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or

 fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death

 results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap,

 aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse,

 or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned

 for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."



 The key phrase here is in the third paragraph where it states, "...but

 also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority..."



 The problem one is going to face in court is to get the court to agree

 that the federal agent has overstepped his/her bounds when the

 definitions and limits are not clearly defined. He/she could argue that

 they are operating on good-faith and being conservative in the

 interpretation in order to protect the public welfare. Given that almost

 no one understands radioactivity and a large portion of the population

 reacts in a mindless panic when radioactivity is mentioned, it is going

 to be darned difficult to get a conviction on this basis.



 OTOH, if one can make a big enough stink, bureaucratic agencies have

 been known to throw their own to the wolves to save the skin of the rest

 of the people involved. (Example: FBI agent Lon Horiuchi in the Ruby

 Ridge shootings.) If you can make this happen enough times perhaps

 government employees will start to run for cover and try not to stick

 their necks out. That might result in them leaving us alone.



 Regardless, this is a very difficult problem. We are reaching a point

 where we are going to have to seriously fight back or give in forever.

 My belief is that appeasement does not work. Neither does "staying under

 the RADAR."



 But that is just my opinion.



 I wonder if we can somehow get them declared as terrorists. That would

 simplify things a LOT.



 --

 Brian Lloyd                         2243 Cattle Dr.

 brian-yak at lloyd dot com          Folsom, CA 95630

 +1.916.367.2131 (voice)             +1.270.912.0788 (fax)



 I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .

 - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

- The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List

brian

Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 643
Location: Sacramento, California, USA

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:42 pm Post subject: Going after overzealous Feds

Jon Boede wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 I have a friend who's a police officer and a politician and he's been sued

 under this statute for political reasons.  It should be very effective in

 dealing with FAA types according to my friend because:


	


How do you sue under this? It is a criminal statute, not a civil

statute. You can bring him up under charges but I can see how you can sue.



 	  Quote: 	
		   a) You sue the person individually, which costs them money to respond.  If

 nothing else, this substantially tempers their behavior in the future.

 

 b) They discover that their agency has zero, or possibly negative, loyalty

 to them -- everybody around them scatters, ducks and covers.  It reminds

 everybody else that once they're one silly millimeter outside their

 authority that they're no longer a representative of the FAA, but all

 alone in a big field.

 

 c) The suit is resolved in a court typically far outside the influence of

 the FAA ... which typically lets a lot of bright sunshine into the

 situation, and we all know what a brutal experience that can be for

 creatures of the night.  


	


That is a good point. So, how was the district attorney convinced to

bring charges? Ah, politics.



-- 

Brian Lloyd                         361 Catterline Way

brian-yak at lloyd dot com          Folsom, CA 95630

+1.916.367.2131 (voice)             +1.270.912.0788 (fax)



I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .

- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

- The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List

johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:30 pm Post subject: Going after overzealous Feds

A most effective method is known as "Congressionalizing".  Turns out a

formal written request of a Senator or Congressman must trigger a formal

internal investigation of the offending agency and its agent. Regardless

of which Federal Agency focused on, the launching of such a claim can

block an individual employee's advancement or more.  The thought of such

action will alone stop many overzealous feds in their tracks.



Two of my friends were involved.  One was the citizen, the other an

Airworthiness Inspector at the local FSDO.  Finding of the claim was

that the AI had overstepped his authority and misinterpreted the latest

ruling.  It set his career path backwards 10 years. He moved to Europe.



Be sure you reference the facts to support your claim clearly to your

elected official.  The case is not closed until the elected official is

comfortable the issue has been properly addressed.  This is not a

maneuver that is publicly communicated.  



You will get the government you deserve.  It does not require money or

an attorney.



John Cox, former Designated Pilot Examiner



--

- The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List

brian

Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 643
Location: Sacramento, California, USA

Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:59 am Post subject: Going after overzealous Feds

John W. Cox wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 A most effective method is known as "Congressionalizing".  Turns out a

... 

 Be sure you reference the facts to support your claim clearly to your

 elected official.  The case is not closed until the elected official is

 comfortable the issue has been properly addressed.  This is not a

 maneuver that is publicly communicated.  


	


That is fine. When my father was in congress he had staff dedicated to

solving problems constituents had with various government agencies. His

standing rule for his staff was to *always* assume that the federal

agency was wrong and to work from there.



I have had some experience with today's members. Most seem to have the

opposite attitude and constituent complaints more and more fall on deaf

ears. If you have a congresscritter who actually listens and goes to bat

for you, you better do all you can to keep him or her there.



But your point is well taken. It is just that, for some reason, it

doesn't always work. Both Bob Hoover and Bill Bainbridge tried to go

that route to no avail.



 	  Quote: 	
		   You will get the government you deserve.  It does not require money or

 an attorney.


	


No, and the problem is, because we have been collectively stupid and

complacent, we are getting all the government we deserve. Unfortunately

I don't think *anyone* really deserves what we are getting.



I do think it is time to get serious about this.



-- 

Brian Lloyd                         361 Catterline Way

brian-yak at lloyd dot com          Folsom, CA 95630

+1.916.367.2131 (voice)             +1.270.912.0788 (fax)



I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .

- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

- The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List

fish(at)aviation-tech.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:26 pm Post subject: Going after overzealous Feds

Group,

It is funny the subject of congress comes up now on this form, as I was just

talking about this issue at work last week.

In the last election, approx 28% of the eligible voters voted! So the minority

of the people are making the decisions for the many that abdicate their responsibility.......

As a group if we can all get togeather on this, we can change things for the

better. 

Fly Safe 

John Fischer

 	  Quote: 	

John W. Cox wrote:

> 

> 

> A most effective method is known as "Congressionalizing".  Turns out a

>... 

> Be sure you reference the facts to support your claim clearly to your

> elected official.  The case is not closed until the elected official is

> comfortable the issue has been properly addressed.  This is not a

> maneuver that is publicly communicated.  

That is fine. When my father was in congress he had staff dedicated to

solving problems constituents had with various government agencies. His

standing rule for his staff was to *always* assume that the federal

agency was wrong and to work from there.

I have had some experience with today's members. Most seem to have the

opposite attitude and constituent complaints more and more fall on deaf

ears. If you have a congresscritter who actually listens and goes to bat

for you, you better do all you can to keep him or her there.

But your point is well taken. It is just that, for some reason, it

doesn't always work. Both Bob Hoover and Bill Bainbridge tried to go

that route to no avail.

> You will get the government you deserve.  It does not require money or

> an attorney.

No, and the problem is, because we have been collectively stupid and

complacent, we are getting all the government we deserve. Unfortunately

I don't think *anyone* really deserves what we are getting.

I do think it is time to get serious about this.

-- 

Brian Lloyd                         361 Catterline Way

brian-yak at lloyd dot com          Folsom, CA 95630

+1.916.367.2131 (voice)             +1.270.912.0788 (fax)

I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .

- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

- The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List

bvthomas(at)bigpond.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 12:46 am Post subject: Going after overzealous Feds

John, in reply to your comments that 28% of  eligible voters actually took the time to vote staggers me;

 are 72% of Americans not interested in WHO  governs your country and makes foreign policy.

 This gives the lobbyists and self interest groups  open slather.

 We in the land of OZ (Australia) have since  1901 had compulsory voting in all elections; local, state and

 federal and while it is'nt perfect (about 5% donkey  vote) it sure beats 28%. We really get the government we deserve;  perhaps you should consider asking that great statesman Abraham Lincoln to  come back and

 rewrite a few things.

 Regards Bruce Thomas  18T

- The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List

Frank

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 69

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:26 pm Post subject: Going after overzealous Feds

Bruce

 It's  OK, almost half those who do vote here vote for the donkey  

 Frank

 [quote]   

   --

- The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List

L39parts(at)hotmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 7:09 pm Post subject: Going after overzealous Feds

interesting?  Does that mean that most aussies  did want guns banned?  If most of them wanted to get rid of them, why  didn't each person just throw his away?

  

 As for low voter turnout in the states:   The USSR had high voter turnout, they just didn't have anyone to vote for.   In the US the choice is inveriably between one ivy-league, aristocratic,  son-of-a-lifelong politician, who never held an honest job in his life, and  another one of the same.  Between one gun-grabbing politician and  another.  Both will go duck-hunting at some critical phase of the  race.  It really comes down to whether to vote for the clown with the pink  ties or the clown who says nu-q-ler.  It's not that hard to do a tiny bit  to fight global warming by staying home that day (remember the WW II  poster:  Is this trip really necessary?)

 [quote]   ---

- The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Yak-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum