ADIZ pilot's ticket revoked

In rec.aviation.owning Roger wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2005 06:40:25 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


"Mike Granby" wrote in message
oups.com...

Sheaffer has hired an attorney, Mark T. McDermott, a principal
in the Washington, D.C., law firm of Joseph, McDermott and
Reiner, to represent him. In a written statement, Sheaffer claimed
that he prepared for the flight properly by checking weather and
temporary flight restrictions and conducted a thorough preflight.

Great. So not only has he screw himself re his ticket, he's now about
to **** all his money away on high-price attornies and a useless fight.

Quite so. His statement that he checked all this from his home PC where
there is no audit history doesn't hold up.

There is an audit trail both on the PC (unless it's erased) and on
Duats (Session and Transaction number).

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Only problem is they never claimed to have checked Duats and that's the
only one that officially counts.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Blueskies" wrote in message
...
Think about this folks....Customs patrols the borders where
the ADIZ is supposed to be...our gov't is so confused that
it thinks it has a country inside our country, thus the ADIZ
around DC. So the Customs plane was simply protecting the
border inside the border...

But are they protecting DC from the rest of the country or the rest of the
country from DC... Personally, I would prefer it to be the latter...

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
Which is why his legal team must mount the "Miracle on 34th Street"
defense:

"We intend to prove there really is a Santa Clause Your Honor"

He's got no defense. The thought that he might even try to dispute most of
the charges is ludicrous, even if he does indeed go and try to do just that.

I just don't see what the point of tacking on 91.13 is.

They need to make the case about the FAA, Homeland Security, TSA, the
Media, etc. But what do I know about legal matters? I thought OJ did it

In our justice system, it is entirely possible (and even expected, at least
for a small number of cases) that someone can have done the crime, but not
be found guilty of it.

I'd love to see SOME case be turned into an indictment against the FAA, DHS,
TSA, the Media, etc. IMHO, this probably isn't the one, given how oblivious
the pilot seems to be about the whole thing. What we need is a pilot who is
clearly competent, and yet in spite of good-faith efforts to stay out of
trouble, wound up in trouble anyway. Much more media-friendly.

Pete

"But... but maybe he's only a little crazy like painters or composers
or... or some of those men in Washington." - Miracle on 34th Street
(1947)

Yes, one of the best quotes from that movie.

"Roger" wrote in message
...

Quite so. His statement that he checked all this from his home PC where
there is no audit history doesn't hold up.

There is an audit trail both on the PC (unless it's erased)
and on
Duats (Session and Transaction number).


He didn't use DUATS...he said he used something like the Weather Channel.

I doubt he was aware that even if erased a disk can be read. If he WAS
aware, I think his lawyer was figuring that doing a disk recovery would be
major overkill.

wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning Roger wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2005 06:40:25 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

There is an audit trail both on the PC (unless it's erased) and on
Duats (Session and Transaction number).


Only problem is they never claimed to have checked Duats and that's the
only one that officially counts.


Quite! He said he checked weather and NOTAMS on some "unofficial" web site.
IIRC, he never mentioned if the "other" web site showed the RA.

If the feds wanted to verify his story, they'd have to do a complete disk
recovery and it's not likely they would do so in a relatively trivial case
such as this. I suspect his lawyer knows this and used that excuse as a
dodge against a negligence action.

I don't use DUATS either, but I print everything I do get, weather, TAFs,
maps, _everything_, and keep it in a flight folio.

In rec.aviation.owning Matt Barrow wrote:

wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning Roger wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2005 06:40:25 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

There is an audit trail both on the PC (unless it's erased) and on
Duats (Session and Transaction number).


Only problem is they never claimed to have checked Duats and that's the
only one that officially counts.


Quite! He said he checked weather and NOTAMS on some "unofficial" web site.
IIRC, he never mentioned if the "other" web site showed the RA.

If the feds wanted to verify his story, they'd have to do a complete disk
recovery and it's not likely they would do so in a relatively trivial case
such as this. I suspect his lawyer knows this and used that excuse as a
dodge against a negligence action.

I don't use DUATS either, but I print everything I do get, weather, TAFs,
maps, _everything_, and keep it in a flight folio.

That won't do you much good in a legal battle; only DUATS or a call to
FS is an official CYA.

I check weather etc. elsewhere than finish with DUATS for a scan of
NOTAMS and PIREPS and to get my official square checked.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning Matt Barrow wrote:

wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning Roger
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2005 06:40:25 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

There is an audit trail both on the PC (unless it's erased) and on
Duats (Session and Transaction number).


Only problem is they never claimed to have checked Duats and that's
the
only one that officially counts.


Quite! He said he checked weather and NOTAMS on some "unofficial" web
site.
IIRC, he never mentioned if the "other" web site showed the RA.

If the feds wanted to verify his story, they'd have to do a complete
disk
recovery and it's not likely they would do so in a relatively trivial
case
such as this. I suspect his lawyer knows this and used that excuse as a
dodge against a negligence action.

I don't use DUATS either, but I print everything I do get, weather,
TAFs,
maps, _everything_, and keep it in a flight folio.

That won't do you much good in a legal battle; only DUATS or a call to
FS is an official CYA.

It depends if the battle was a criminal action or a negligence action.

I'd rather have the actual DOCUMENTS than just a log that said I did in fact
call for a briefing. And yes, I can print from DUATS, but until recently
(IIRC) all you could do was screen dumps. I don't know when they changed,
but I remember when all you could do was accesss them from a dumb terminal
and printing was impossible.

I check weather etc. elsewhere than finish with DUATS for a scan of
NOTAMS and PIREPS and to get my official square checked.

It may be up to the second and the most thorough but it's isn't "Official"
as far as I know (hanger lawyers, what say??).

Could you prove that you did anything more than just scan the data on the
screen?

Matt Barrow wrote:

I'd rather have the actual DOCUMENTS than just a log that said I did in fact
call for a briefing. And yes, I can print from DUATS, but until recently
(IIRC) all you could do was screen dumps. I don't know when they changed,
but I remember when all you could do was accesss them from a dumb terminal
and printing was impossible.

If you access the raw text service with telnet, and use any of the modern
terminal emulators, you can easily get a text file that you can browse with your
favorite text editor, print, run post-processing filters, etc...

Blueskies wrote:

Think about this folks....Customs patrols the borders where the ADIZ is supposed to be...our gov't is so confused that
it thinks it has a country inside our country, thus the ADIZ around DC.

Well, as alienated as most of the politicos seem to be getting from the
mainstream population, I'd say this is a fair assumption. How long do you think
it'll be before we need passports to go there?

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

Peter Duniho wrote:

Note that, at least judging from the very brief explanation Gary posted a
link for, we would not charge a criminal guilty only of theft, burglary, or
similar crimes (even if those are felonies).

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The felony murder rule, adopted by a number of jurisdictions, is a legal
doctrine according to which anyone who commits, or is found to be involved in, a
serious crime (a felony), during which any person dies, is guilty of murder. (In
states with the death penalty, this usually includes capital murder, although
there are independent constitutional limitations on the imposition of the death
penalty on those guilty of felony murder.) This applies even if one does not
personally or directly cause the person's death. For example, a getaway driver
for an armed robbery can be convicted of murder if one of the robbers killed
someone -- or got killed in some jurisdictions -- in the process of the robbery,
even though the driver was not present at and did not expect the killing.

However, the actual situation is not as clear-cut as the above implies. In
reality, not all felonious actions will apply in most jurisdictions. To
"qualify" for the felony murder rule, the felony must present some degree of
danger. If while passing a forged check, the receiver, who happens to be a
hemopheliac, gets a paper cut and bleeds to death, most courts will not hold the
defendant guilty of murder.

On the other hand, many activities that are inherently very dangerous cannot
apply for the felony murder rule. Aggravated assault, for instance, does not.
The reason is that virtually all murders result from an assault! (It's hard to
cause the death of someone without causing them bodily harm.) But aggravated
assault is a felony. Thus if the felony murder rule were to apply in the case of
aggravated assault, it would essenitally reduce the culpability requirements
carefully set by the legislature for murder to those requirements of assault.
For this reason aggravated assault would be said to "merge" with murder.

To counter the common law style interpretations of what does and does not merge
with murder (and thus what does not and does qualify for felony murder), many
states explicitly list what offenses qualify. The American Law Institute's Model
Penal Code lists robbery, rape or forcible deviate sexual intercourse, arson,
burglary, kidnapping, and felonious escape.

Other issues also loom. For instance, whose actions can cause the defendant to
be guilty of felony murder? There are two schools of thought. One is the agency
theory; the other is the proximate cause theory. The former states that only
deaths caused by the agents of the crime can result in a felony murder
conviction, while the latter holds that any deaths that result from a crime
would qualify. As an example of the distinction, take the following hypothetical.

Say John Doe is robbing a bank. John is a bit careless however, and is not
paying attention long enough that one of the tellers has a chance to hit the
silent alarm. Police arrive, and corner John. Rather than give up nicely, John
decides to try to fight his way out, and begins shooting. Officers return fire,
and one of them tragically misaims and the bullet strikes and kills a bystander.
In this case, jurisdictions that follow the agency theory would hold that John
is not guilty of felony murder in the death of the bystander, as the death was
immediately caused by the actions of the police, who are not agents of the
crime. Jurisdictions following the proximate cause theory however adopt an
opinion much closer to a but for relationship: the death would not have occurred
but for the commission of the crime, so John is guilty of felony murder.

Note that if John Doe was not alone and was with, say, his wife Jane Doe, if
John kills someone (even accidentally) during the comission of the robbery, both
John and Jane are guilty of felony murder since they are both agents of crime,
and conspired together. Even Joe Shmoe driving around the block in the getaway
car would be guilty of felony murder despite the fact that he likely didn't even
know that anyone was killed. This is essentially universally held.

Felony murder is typically the same grade of murder as premeditated murder. In
many jurisdictions, felony murder is a crime for which the death penalty can be
imposed, subject to one of two additional requirements. A person convicted of
felony murder cannot be executed unless it is shown that he himself killed,
attempted to kill, or intended to kill. For example, three people conspired to
commit armed robbery. Two of them went in to the house and committed the
robbery, and in the process killed the occupants of the house. The third person
sat outside in the getaway car, and he was later convicted of felony murder. But
because he himself neither killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill, he
cannot be executed even though he is guilty of felony murder.

On the other hand, a person who is convicted of murder can be executed if it is
shown that he was a "major participant" in the murder and showed "extreme
indifference to human life." For example, three brothers who broke their father
out of prison and went on a crime spree killed a family traveling along a
highway. They did so by flagging down their car under the pretense of being
distressed motorists, then leading them out into the desert and shooting them
execution-style. The father was the one who actually pulled the trigger, but the
brothers were present at the killings and could have stopped them. A statewide
police manhunt ensured; the father and brothers parted ways, and the father and
one of the brothers died of exposure in the desert. The two remaining brothers
were later apprehended, and the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that imposing the
death penalty on them did not violate the Constitution.
George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.