Arrogant judges making law...

[Denny]

Quoted text to follow my comments:

The Federal Judges have gone nuts (so what's new?)... Based on what I
read here a non pilot judge has decided that the controller is
obligated to fly the airplane... These kinds of garbage rulings have
enormous concequences for the rest of us as pilots... The general
public doesn't understand and doesn't care and thus will remain silent,
but we pilots need to start protesting to the courts( with real
letters, not email) about their bad decisions...


*****************Lifted shamelessly from AOPA bulletin*******
FAA accused in two Florida crashes
Instrument flying in Florida is enshrouded in a heavy fog of
litigation. Two recent court cases, one pending and one already
decided, have some similarities that could place some of the blame on
FAA controllers.

Survivors of a pilot who was killed in a crash sued the FAA in federal
court recently, alleging that controllers didn't warn the pilot of his
position on final approach and that FAA employees didn't maintain
landing equipment properly.

On November 27, 2003, Dr. George Swanson, a physician from Texas, was
flying a Swearingen Merlin II on an ILS approach into Craig Municipal
Airport in Jacksonville. Controllers had advised the pilot that the
weather was below landing minimums and gave him alternate airports,
according to the NTSB's preliminary report.

But the lawsuit claims that controllers didn't advise Swanson of the
alternate airports and failed to warn him that he was flying too low on
final approach because of irregularities in transponder altitude
readouts that were "greater than 300 feet in error." The lawsuit also
alleges that FAA employees were negligent in inspecting the ILS for
electrical interference from nearby microwave and cell phone towers.

The pilot attempted the approach but hit trees behind a shopping
center. Swanson died in the incident while his four children on board
reported only minor injuries.

The lawsuit comes on the heels of another case in which a federal judge
found the FAA mostly liable for a 2001 crash that killed two attorneys
and their two clients at Jacksonville International Airport. In the
decision reached November 15, the FAA was faulted for not giving the
pilot current and complete weather information. The pilot in that
crash, Donald Weidner, was found to be 35 percent responsible because
he became disoriented after two missed approaches (one of which was at
Craig).

The FAA claimed that the pilot was "well-informed about the weather"
during "all stages of the flight," reported The Florida Times-Union. A
contributing factor may have been cold medication, not approved by the
FAA, that he had taken. "Weidner's decision to undertake the flight
despite his illness, fatigue, and ingestion of medications does not
meet the standard of care expected of a reasonably prudent instrument
pilot," said Justice Department attorney Colleen Conlin, according to
the newspaper.

There will be a separate trial to determine the amount of damages. -
Nathan A. Ferguson

[Dan Luke]

"Denny" > wrote:
> The Federal Judges have gone nuts

No jury?

[Matt Barrow]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Denny" > wrote:
> > The Federal Judges have gone nuts
>
> No jury?
>
Juries determine facts, not law (who is responsible -- this might not be
the case here). Further, check http://www.fija.org for how lame juries can
be made when a judge or the government (at any level) decides to make a
point.

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[skym]

Cases against the US govt are tried to a federal judge, not a jury.
The gov't doesn't trust juries.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> Juries determine facts, not law (who is responsible -- this might not be

Juries don't determine facts. Facts exist or don't.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

[Matt Barrow]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
> > Juries determine facts, not law (who is responsible -- this might not be
>
> Juries don't determine facts. Facts exist or don't.

Hmmm!! As my Dad used to say, "Is that a fact?".

And how do you know they exist or not?

Gee, using that logic, why do we bother to investigate? Hell, why do we go
further and bother to try the case at all?


Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> > > Juries determine facts, not law (who is responsible -- this might not be
> >
> > Juries don't determine facts. Facts exist or don't.
>
> Hmmm!! As my Dad used to say, "Is that a fact?".

yep

>
> And how do you know they exist or not?

Think about the difference between having commited a crime and
being convicted of a crime in a court of law. Think about how a
jury could actually "determine facts" if some of the evidence is excluded
because it was improperly obtained.

> Gee, using that logic, why do we bother to investigate? Hell, why do we go
> further and bother to try the case at all?

yeah, that's a logical conclusion to reach...

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

[George Patterson]

"The law is what the court decides it is."
Chief Justice Marshall - early 19th century

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
...
> "The law is what the court decides it is."
> Chief Justice Marshall - early 19th century
>
Hmmm!! I can't find that quote anywhere...

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
> > > > Juries determine facts, not law (who is responsible -- this might
not be
> > >
> > > Juries don't determine facts. Facts exist or don't.
> >
> > Hmmm!! As my Dad used to say, "Is that a fact?".
>
> yep
>
> >
> > And how do you know they exist or not?
>
> Think about the difference between having commited a crime and
> being convicted of a crime in a court of law. Think about how a
> jury could actually "determine facts" if some of the evidence is excluded
> because it was improperly obtained.

Not an attorney, are 'ya? Or an epistolologist?

>
> > Gee, using that logic, why do we bother to investigate? Hell, why do we
go
> > further and bother to try the case at all?
>
> yeah, that's a logical conclusion to reach...

Yeah, your attempt to spin your dumbass remark is where it leads.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> Not an attorney, are 'ya? Or an epistolologist?

Nope. And I don't need an attorney or a jury to tell me
what a fact is.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

[George Patterson]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> Hmmm!! I can't find that quote anywhere...

He was known to phrase it that way outside the court, and that is what is taught
in some law classes at Yale. The more correct version was stated in Marbury vs
Madison and goes "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is."

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> >
> > Hmmm!! I can't find that quote anywhere...
>
> He was known to phrase it that way outside the court, and that is what is
taught
> in some law classes at Yale. The more correct version was stated in
Marbury vs
> Madison and goes "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
> department to say what the law is."

Which (last part there) is entirely correct, or at least for the SC to
determine the Constitutionality.

[George Patterson]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> Which (last part there) is entirely correct, or at least for the SC to
> determine the Constitutionality.

It is "correct" now purely because Marshall said it. If Jackson had argued the
issue by legal means (rather than just ignoring the court when it suited him to
do so), things would have been considerably different. And it is not limited to
the Supreme Court by any means.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[Blueskies]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> Not an attorney, are 'ya? Or an epistolologist?
>
> Nope. And I don't need an attorney or a jury to tell me
> what a fact is.
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> looking for a sig the lawyers will like



Is that a fact?


;-)

[Denny]

The real issue with the trial by jury, is that the jurors are allowed
to hear only what the Judge wants them to hear... Now there are lies
of commission and lies of omission, and juries are constantly fed more
lies by omission than what comes out of the mouths of the liars on the
stand... Look, I'm a big boy and since the day I saw my first argument
in the recess yard I know that when there is an argument there are
liars... So, when I'm a juror let both sides drag in everyone they want
and tell the story any way they want, and I'll sift through the chaff
for the kernals of wheat... I'm hopefully waiting for the day that a
jury renders a verdict, is turned loose, and when they find out how
much was kept from them by the Judge, which would have reversed their
verdict, file a complaint with the Chief Justice of that state...

denny

[Matt Barrow]

"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The real issue with the trial by jury, is that the jurors are allowed
> to hear only what the Judge wants them to hear... Now there are lies
> of commission and lies of omission, and juries are constantly fed more
> lies by omission than what comes out of the mouths of the liars on the
> stand... Look, I'm a big boy and since the day I saw my first argument
> in the recess yard I know that when there is an argument there are
> liars... So, when I'm a juror let both sides drag in everyone they want
> and tell the story any way they want, and I'll sift through the chaff
> for the kernals of wheat... I'm hopefully waiting for the day that a
> jury renders a verdict, is turned loose, and when they find out how
> much was kept from them by the Judge, which would have reversed their
> verdict, file a complaint with the Chief Justice of that state...

Even if they could, would they even be bright enough? Remember, the biggest
hazard to a jury trial is having a group of 12 that was too dumb to get out
of jury duty.

> denny

http://www.fija.org

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> >
> > Which (last part there) is entirely correct, or at least for the SC to
> > determine the Constitutionality.
>
> It is "correct" now purely because Marshall said it. If Jackson had argued
the
> issue by legal means (rather than just ignoring the court when it suited
him to
> do so), things would have been considerably different. And it is not
limited to
> the Supreme Court by any means.

So, if not the SC, what would be the body to make the final determination of
constitutionality?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[George Patterson]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Matt Barrow wrote:
> > >
> > > Which (last part there) is entirely correct, or at least for the SC to
> > > determine the Constitutionality.
> >
> > It is "correct" now purely because Marshall said it. If Jackson had argued
> the
> > issue by legal means (rather than just ignoring the court when it suited
> him to
> > do so), things would have been considerably different. And it is not
> limited to
> > the Supreme Court by any means.
>
> So, if not the SC, what would be the body to make the final determination of
> constitutionality?

SOCUS hears cases that have been appealed to it through the U.S. District courts
and Appeals courts. The judges in these courts frequently make decisions that
are not appealed, and those decisions determine what the law is. Note that
Marshall said "the judicial branch." SOCUS is only a small part of the judicial
branch.

Furthermore, while the Supreme Court takes up the issue of constitutionality,
the lower courts decide what the law is based on other factors. If you can't
come up with a reasonable challenge to their decisions based on
constitutionality, they are the final arbiters.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[TaxSrv]

"George Patterson" wrote:
> ...
> Furthermore, while the Supreme Court takes up the issue of
constitutionality,
> the lower courts decide what the law is based on other factors. If
you can't
> come up with a reasonable challenge to their decisions based on
> constitutionality, they are the final arbiters.
>

Oops, not true. The Supreme Court also decides matters where there's
a conflict among the Circuits as to a rule of law. Example: federal
tax issues, which very rarely are Constitutional matters except in
criminal tax cases.

Fred F.

[George Patterson]

TaxSrv wrote:
>
> "George Patterson" wrote:
> > ...
> > Furthermore, while the Supreme Court takes up the issue of
> constitutionality,
> > the lower courts decide what the law is based on other factors. If
> you can't
> > come up with a reasonable challenge to their decisions based on
> > constitutionality, they are the final arbiters.
> >
>
> Oops, not true. The Supreme Court also decides matters where there's
> a conflict among the Circuits as to a rule of law. Example: federal
> tax issues, which very rarely are Constitutional matters except in
> criminal tax cases.

I did not say that cases of constitutionality is all that SOCUS does.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
> I did not say that cases of constitutionality is all that SOCUS does.
>

What's SOCUS?

[TaxSrv]

> I did not say that cases of constitutionality is all that SOCUS
does.
>
> George Patterson

You wrote, " If you can't come up with a reasonable challenge to their
decisions based on
constitutionality, they [the lower courts] are the final arbiters."
Guess you meant better wording, though a rather minor issue anyway.
:-)

F --

[Morgans]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I did not say that cases of constitutionality is all that SOCUS does.
> >
>
> What's SOCUS?
>
>

He meant supreme court of the us SCOUS

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> He meant supreme court of the us SCOUS
>

Oh. SCOTUS

[Robert Clark]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>He meant supreme court of the us SCOUS
>>
>
>
> Oh. SCOTUS
>
>
The reputation that some of the judges in this country are getting makes
me think they're more like the SCROTUM

[Matt Barrow]

"Robert Clark" > wrote in message
m...
> >>He meant supreme court of the us SCOUS
> >>
> >
> >
> > Oh. SCOTUS
> >
> >
> The reputation that some of the judges in this country are getting makes
> me think they're more like the SCROTUM


Many decisions of late are prime examples of tortured logic. As the "Gang of
Nine" gets older and more and more senile, I expect it to get far worse.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Montblack]

("Matt Barrow" wrote)
> Many decisions of late are prime examples of tortured logic. As the "Gang
> of
> Nine" gets older and more and more senile, I expect it to get far worse.


Judges 75

Next!!

Airline Pilots 65

There, that was easy. Next...!!


Montblack