40 pilots busted in the San Francisco area

[wsuffa]

I've read of cases where the RICO act was used to persecute relatively or even completely innocent parties with the municipalities involved gleefully raking in a bunch of money and falsely calling it justice. Locally, we've had a number of cases where the local gestapo terrorized innocent families and seriously destroyed private property on "no-knock" warrants (I'm talking bulldozers through the walls of a home) acting on radically incorrect information provided by dubious sources and/or errors in identifying/confirming the correct address.

And it appears that as long as "it doesn't happen to them", most citizens today find all of this an acceptable side effect of "improved security".

Yesterday I had a knock at the door. It was the local gesta<er> city code enforcement officer. Apparently someone had complained to the city that a new carport awning had been installed *somewhere* on my street, and since mine was the only one she could see, she was writing me up for violating city code. I pointed out that the awning had been installed since before I bought the house. She then asked if I had replaced it recently. I said I did just after I moved in *5 years ago*. She pointed out that city code requires me to get a permit for *any* outside repairs or replacements, including replacing the awning like-for-like. But she didn't write me up because her information said the replacement was "very recent, new".

I have a call in to the Mayor's office and my city councilman right now. First, they shouldn't have been making assumptions (if I hadn't been home, I would have a citation even though I'm the incorrect party), second that this law encourages neighborhood snitches - who may very well be WRONG, and third, there really is no need for such a restrictive law on like-for-like repairs/replacement because it discourages people from keeping their houses up because of the hassle.

No, I didn't know the restrictions when I moved in. This is a historical district, and my due-diligence at the time said that permits are required only for "major" changes to the outside of the structure. Minor stuff was supposedly OK. There is a small faction of nazi neighbors that went after the local library for refurbishing a house (these neighbors wanted it to remain residential rather than expand the library)... these same folks want the city code tightened even more. Yes, I'd love to move....

 

[judypilot]

Yesterday I had a knock at the door. It was the local gesta<er> city code enforcement officer. Apparently someone had complained to the city that a new carport awning had been installed *somewhere* on my street, and since mine was the only one she could see, she was writing me up for violating city code. I pointed out that the awning had been installed since before I bought the house. She then asked if I had replaced it recently. I said I did just after I moved in *5 years ago*. She pointed out that city code requires me to get a permit for *any* outside repairs or replacements, including replacing the awning like-for-like. But she didn't write me up because her information said the replacement was "very recent, new".

I have a call in to the Mayor's office and my city councilman right now. First, they shouldn't have been making assumptions (if I hadn't been home, I would have a citation even though I'm the incorrect party), second that this law encourages neighborhood snitches - who may very well be WRONG, and third, there really is no need for such a restrictive law on like-for-like repairs/replacement because it discourages people from keeping their houses up because of the hassle.

No, I didn't know the restrictions when I moved in. This is a historical district, and my due-diligence at the time said that permits are required only for "major" changes to the outside of the structure. Minor stuff was supposedly OK. There is a small faction of nazi neighbors that went after the local library for refurbishing a house (these neighbors wanted it to remain residential rather than expand the library)... these same folks want the city code tightened even more. Yes, I'd love to move....

Yikes! I thought sure you must live in California. Wha' happened?

Judy

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Okay, one more time, and then I'll give up. The point is NOT that they yanked his medical. Yes, he lied. Yes, he should be punished. Yes, maybe he should even have his flying privileges revoked forever. He is not disputing that.

What you should be afraid of is that the government is willing to break its own laws to find out if you've been misbehaving and then wants your complicity in covering up their own lawbreaking. THAT'S the point. Perhaps you agree that the government should be able to do ignore laws and do whatever it takes to come after you. In that case, you are a big supporter of the Patriot Act, among others. That's the point we should be arguing.

Judy

No problem seeing the danger there ! It may be the guy's major barganing point to counter his bad of lying on the written record.
But WHY did he think it was OK for him to lie ???

 

[judypilot]

No problem seeing the danger there ! It may be the guy's major barganing point to counter his bad of lying on the written record.
But WHY did he think it was OK for him to lie ???

Dave,

In his heart of hearts, he knew it was wrong, which is why he was careful to at least make sure he met the FAA standards for being physically able. Beyond that, I can't say more. I'm sorry, as it might be a bit clearer if I could.

Judy

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Dave,

In his heart of hearts, he knew it was wrong, which is why he was careful to at least make sure he met the FAA standards for being physically able. Beyond that, I can't say more. I'm sorry, as it might be a bit clearer if I could.

Judy

No big deal for now Judy, Thanks,

But somehow, someday, I want to find out, if even hypothetically in a hypothetical case, with fictitious circumstances, what would qualify for premeditated falsification of FAA records.
I might need it someday myself !

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Okay, one more time, and then I'll give up. The point is NOT that they yanked his medical. Yes, he lied. Yes, he should be punished. Yes, maybe he should even have his flying privileges revoked forever. He is not disputing that.

Judy, I believe in your last two posts I finally spotted the disconnect. You are discussing the specifics of a single case the details of which you somewhat know, I am discussing the general assumed case of which I don't care if the details are true or not. IOW, I'm discussing the hypothetical government action against a hypothetical pilot who hypothetically obtained a medical by claiming perfect health while hypothetically collecting disability payments. This hypothetical situation is what the government is claiming they have. My complaint is that if indeed the government has found the hypothetical, the government's method of pursuing that hypothetical is totally foolish. In essence, by the government's claim of operation while medically deficient as the basis to yank a pilot medical the government endorses the disability claim. If the hypothetical were indeed true I would hope that the government would pursue the falsification claim so as to preserve intact a claim of fraud for disability benefits. IOW, the government by means of the second approach could recoup both a pilot medical and all disability payments.

The fact that the government over stepped its authority, used illegal means to gather data, etc., etc.? Well, the government recently enacted laws to hold the CEO of a corporation personally responsible for the corporation's illegal acts. I think the same laws should apply to government.

If the government is found guilty of illegal acts in your friend's particular case, 20 years to life for GW works for me if it works for your friend.

 

[wsuffa]

Yikes! I thought sure you must live in California. Wha' happened?

Judy

Texas.

A handful of "nazi" folks in the neighborhood have taken it upon themselves to "enforce" the looks and atmosphere of the neighborhood. And they're using the city to do that. They're trying to get a code enforcement officer assigned full-time to this neighborhood - and tighten the laws. And you're subject to special scrutiny if you don't sign on with their association and cowtow to their wishes.

That so many people might be violating various nitpicky paperwork sections of the law as to require a fulltime code enforcement person tells me that it is the law that's broken. We don't even had a fulltime police officer assigned to the neighborhood.

It's as bad as condemnation for economic reasons.

 

[corjulo]

Texas.

A handful of "nazi" folks in the neighborhood have taken it upon themselves to "enforce" the looks and atmosphere of the neighborhood. And they're using the city to do that. They're trying to get a code enforcement officer assigned full-time to this neighborhood - and tighten the laws. And you're subject to special scrutiny if you don't sign on with their association and cowtow to their wishes.

That so many people might be violating various nitpicky paperwork sections of the law as to require a fulltime code enforcement person tells me that it is the law that's broken. We don't even had a fulltime police officer assigned to the neighborhood.

It's as bad as condemnation for economic reasons.

My dad had a similar problem with his neighbors. He let it be known if they kept it up he was going to rent part of his property for a cell phone tower. In the Sate he lives sighting commission trump local zoning power. They backed off real quick

 

[RogerT]

This is the part that bothers me. Given the choice of using a signed affidavit attesting to good health in order to charge the 40 people with disability fraud and recoup what was probably millions in fraudulently obtained disability payments, or using the disability claim affidavit to charge the 40 people with illegally obtaining a medical certificate, the government opts for yanking medicals rather than recovering the taxpayers' dollars.

What bozo is in charge of this organization?

Sheesh.

That's exactly my thought, Ed. Why the hell are they letting them
off easy. Go for the big stuff.

 

[corjulo]

That's exactly my thought, Ed. Why the hell are they letting them
off easy. Go for the big stuff.

Maybe the disability claims were not fraud. They where real but not reported to the FAA. A back or knee injury may limit certain jobs but not the ability to fly. Or the time on disability was limited but not reported when it came time for the physical. If this was an FAA investigation that relied on disability claim records then they would limit the investigation to that.

Lucky for us they announce the Supreme Court pick yesterday. That blew this story right off the radar for now.

 

[poadeleted20]

What you should be afraid of is that the government is willing to break its own laws to find out if you've been misbehaving and then wants your complicity in covering up their own lawbreaking. THAT'S the point.

Ah...so your concern is not that these people broke the rules, but rather that you believe the government broke the rules to catch them, right? Have we any the finding by a court of law that the government broke the rules in this case, or is your position based solely on the unproven claims of folks who have admitted falsely certifying the truth of their official statements?

Absent a court finding that the government acted illegally, the needle on my sympathy meter remains firmly against the zero peg, although even if that happens, it won't move very far to the right -- I don't care much for sharing the sky with people I can't trust. I bet my life on the trustworthiness of those with whom I share the sky. How can I trust the position reports in IMC of pilots who lie to avoid going through FAA-mandated procedures to get in the air? How can I be sure they won't cut me off in the pattern because they're in a hurry to get on the ground?

Judy, I just don't hold with the idea that the only crime is to be caught legally. This is "hazardous attitude" at its worst, and it's flat unacceptable in aviation. I don't much care if their criminal convictions are lost on that account, but regardless of how the government caught them, I want them out of the sky in which I fly.

 

[judypilot]

Judy, I just don't hold with the idea that the only crime is to be caught legally.

Oh, I agree with this. I hate the idea that people think it's legal so long as they don't get caught (although in thought, if not in action, my friend doesn't fall as nicely into this category as you clearly would like to think he does).

But I would say that the consequences of the government breaking the law are far, far greater than the consequences of an individual breaking the law. Maybe you are comfortable with the government doing that, in which case, we don't really have a debate.

However, just as I don't hold with the idea that it's only illegal if you're caught, neither do I hold with the idea that just because you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't worry about the government invading your privacy, especially if it breaks the law to do so. In fact, your comment, that you don't care how the government got the information, causes the hair to stand up on the back of my neck.

Judy

 

[John J]

Judy;

Thank you for your comments. I really appreciate it very much. I feel very much the same for we do have to see and learn what our land is all about. I learned from ancestors many years ago about the issues of control and free thought can be viewed as a threat to many. Your notes make me think of Thomas Pain.

Thank you again

John J

 

[poadeleted20]

But I would say that the consequences of the government breaking the law are far, far greater than the consequences of an individual breaking the law. Maybe you are comfortable with the government doing that, in which case, we don't really have a debate.

I'm with you all the way on the theory, but I haven't seen anything that proves the government broke the law. That will be sorted out in court. Until then, I'll withhold judgement on the government. However, at least the person whose statement was posted admits breaking the FAA rules, and as an aviator, I can't forgive that no matter how he was found out, because two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Stache]

The bottom line here the pilots were ripping off the tax payer, thats you and me. We on the West Coast call that stealing and it is a crime. If you can't trust a pilot not to steal then they should not be trusted in the air with a machine that could crash on my house.

One man's opinion.

Stache

 

[Jeff Oslick]

The bottom line here the pilots were ripping off the tax payer, thats you and me. We on the West Coast call that stealing and it is a crime. If you can't trust a pilot not to steal then they should not be trusted in the air with a machine that could crash on my house.

One man's opinion.

Stache

However, the government has not proven that any fraud was committed against the taxpayer, nor has the government proven anything yet, except that one pilot has now admitted he lied on his medical.

Frankly, I'm a bit stunned by the assumption of guilt-on-all-charges that some here are following.


Jeff

 

[Jeff Oslick]

However, at least the person whose statement was posted admits breaking the FAA rules, and as an aviator, I can't forgive that no matter how he was found out, because two wrongs don't make a right.

Ron, you say you can't forgive someone for breaking the FAA rules? Well, what is the NASA-ASRS system for then? Yes, in this case it was deliberate... but, again there are other details to this individual's case. I will follow Judy's lead and not discuss more detail. We only know the details of one of the pilots. I have a strong feeling that of the 39 others, at least several will not be the "evil-scheming pilots" that the government is making them out to be.

I have no tolerance for government employees who will not follow the law. It is the height of hypocracy when the government violates its own laws to prosecute what are, in the grand scheme of life, relatively minor cases. There is typically little, if any, punishment or personal consequence for bureaucrats in cases where the government does violate it's own laws, therefore zealot bureaucrats often have loose reign to do as they please. This is strongly evident in this case, where the government is actively trying to keep one of the accused from going after the government for wrongdoing as part of deal. (see below)

In fact, what this lawyer speculated would happen did happen--the government offered to drop the felony charge if he would plead guilty to the lesser charge AND (and here's the kicker) if he would agree not to move to suppress the government's evidence. If that's not CYA, I don't know what is.

Jeff

 

[judypilot]

I'm with you all the way on the theory, but I haven't seen anything that proves the government broke the law. That will be sorted out in court. Until then, I'll withhold judgement on the government. However, at least the person whose statement was posted admits breaking the FAA rules, and as an aviator, I can't forgive that no matter how he was found out, because two wrongs don't make a right.

Ron,

I'm not sure what you are looking for as far as proof is concerned. I can't provide much in the way of details, but his lawyers are citing a 1974 law explicitly prohibiting computer matching of records. Of course, as you well know, laws aren't "proved" until they are actually tested in court, and I have no idea how much this law has been tested or what other precedents might exist.

Also, it bears repeating--he did NOT have concurrent medical and social security disability. That was the scope of the original investigation. In my understanding, and again, I emphasize that I'm not a lawyer, what they did to him was akin to extending a search illegally without a search warrant. Now that's a gray area that even I might get behind, but I want to keep it straight that the original scope of the investigation was people collecting disability while they had active medicals. He did not do that.

It was really your blanket statement that you don't care how they got the information so long as they got it that really scared me. You did not qualify that with "so long as they got it legally". To me that's the central issue here, not whether he lied on his medical, which again, he admits he did, admits was wrong, and is willing to accept appropriate punishment for.

Judy

 

[Len Lanetti]

If you read the US Attorney's release on their website, it sounds like Homeland Security was behind this, and the USA/DHS pitch is "security".

Good! I'm all for this. Let's arrest all the terrorists who are certified pilots with bad backs who are also illegally collecting social security benefits. There must be thousands of them living among us! This will certainly take our level of security up a notch. I feel better already.

Len