Visit from CBP at my hangar

Morgan3820 said:
Cops shoot unarmed, non threatening people all of the time. Read the papers. I worry about cops more than the thugs, I know what I have with the thugs.
Click to expand...


You'll probably survive the trip to jail if you shoot a murderous thug.
 
comanchepilot said:
Response you will get in 270 Days:



"We have reviewed our files and there are no non-privileged documents responsive to your request."



Now, they have to identify the document by name, date etc, sufficiently to permit review in camera by a court. But they will not do that- then you must appeal the denial - and must timely follow the administrative procedures to complain about the non-response.



45 Days later they will respond:



"we have received your request. We will respond in detail to that request within 180 days as permitted by blah blah blah"



180 days later:



"We received your appeal and believe our prior response was sufficient under the Freedom of Information Act. If you believe we are wrong, you may bring an action under . . . . "



Its now late August 2015.
Click to expand...




Response I got, request closed, final disposition:


Final Disposition, Request CBP-2014-024023
C
CBPFOIA@cbp.dhs.gov
to me
1 minute ago


Request CBP-2014-024023 has been processed with the following final disposition: Records not reasonably described

Review of your letter revealed the description of the records you are requesting to be vague. Please be advised Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations require you to describe the records that you seek in enough detail to enable Departmental personnel to locate them with a reasonable amount of effort. Whenever possible your request should include specific information about each record sought, such as the date, title or name, author, recipient, and subject matter of the record. See Title 6 C.F.R §5.21(b).

Please note U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) staffs the airport ports of entry to the United States of America. More information pertaining to CBP and our mission www.cbp.gov.

FOIA Division
 
Contact your congressman about their refusal. You seemed pretty specific in your request.
 
It takes a village to raise a child - and a 100 lawyer law-firm to raise a CBP document. Just ask Hilary.
 
Thats a bull response - its their job to identify responsive documents -

appeal it

TangoWhiskey said:
Response I got, request closed, final disposition:


Final Disposition, Request CBP-2014-024023
C
CBPFOIA@cbp.dhs.gov
to me
1 minute ago


Request CBP-2014-024023 has been processed with the following final disposition: Records not reasonably described

Review of your letter revealed the description of the records you are requesting to be vague. Please be advised Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations require you to describe the records that you seek in enough detail to enable Departmental personnel to locate them with a reasonable amount of effort. Whenever possible your request should include specific information about each record sought, such as the date, title or name, author, recipient, and subject matter of the record. See Title 6 C.F.R §5.21(b).

Please note U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) staffs the airport ports of entry to the United States of America. More information pertaining to CBP and our mission www.cbp.gov.

FOIA Division
Click to expand...
 
Ars Technica's Cyrus Farivar filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the United States Customs and Border Protection agency for his own travel records, including the notoriously comprehensive "Passenger Name Record" -- what he got was '72 pages of' a redacted jumble of arbitrarily collected and retained nonsense. He didn't get his PNR. If you want to give it a try, he's signposted the procedure.

http://boingboing.net/2014/05/27/how-to-request-your-us-border.html
Click to expand...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-what-the-feds-know-about-where-ive-traveled/
 
At least it's getting more attention. I'm happy to see NPR picked it up.
 
N801BH said:
They picked it up..... And sugar coated it like a treat at a county fair....:mad2:
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I didn't hear that. Care to explain?

Granted, the reporter wasn't a pilot who slanted the story in our direction but I thought they did a reasonably decent job, especially in getting AOPA involved and interviewed in the story.

I do wish they would have based the story more on the last pilot than the first. He was far more articulate.
 
Last edited:
Since 'Faa' violations are not criminal, and not the basis for a law enforcement stop to begin with - their claim of 32% is bogus - it is only 28% - or 7/32 . . . assuming we are talking about significant criminal violations within the ambit of CBP . . . so they are wrong 72% of the time. or nearly 3 in 4 stops. So they are knowingly [at this time] violating the civil rights of three out of four aircraft they stop. . . .

Moreover, given the utter lack of reasonable suspicion to stop in the first place, I'd love to see what percentage of convictions they get . . . since if the defendant walks because of an utter lack of cause to stop . . . then its worthless program. Its not like they can see someone 'weaving' or 'acting furtively' on radar. . . . since I simply start asking about radar coverage, where the painted target faded 'implying effort to evade,' terrain and all the million other reasons why a GA target low to the ground may appear to fade away . . . .

A decent lawyer - not even a good one - will destroy the reasonable suspicion to stop and win the motion to suppress and without any evidence, thats the end of prosecution . . .
 
timwinters said:
Sorry, but I didn't hear that. Care to explain?

Granted, the reporter wasn't a pilot who slanted the story in our direction but I thought they did a reasonably decent job, especially in getting AOPA involved and interviewed in the story.

I do wish they would have based the story more on the last pilot than the first. He was far more articulate.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It was better than we've gotten on NPR. There was one like, "Most hikers asked for quieter areas. A few vocal pilots complained."
 
comanchepilot said:
Since 'Faa' violations are not criminal, and not the basis for a law enforcement stop to begin with - their claim of 32% is bogus - it is only 28% - or 7/32 . . . assuming we are talking about significant criminal violations within the ambit of CBP . . . so they are wrong 72% of the time. or nearly 3 in 4 stops. So they are knowingly [at this time] violating the civil rights of three out of four aircraft they stop. . . .

Moreover, given the utter lack of reasonable suspicion to stop in the first place, I'd love to see what percentage of convictions they get . . . since if the defendant walks because of an utter lack of cause to stop . . . then its worthless program. Its not like they can see someone 'weaving' or 'acting furtively' on radar. . . . since I simply start asking about radar coverage, where the painted target faded 'implying effort to evade,' terrain and all the million other reasons why a GA target low to the ground may appear to fade away . . . .

A decent lawyer - not even a good one - will destroy the reasonable suspicion to stop and win the motion to suppress and without any evidence, thats the end of prosecution . . .
Click to expand...


Sorry, but I didn't hear that. Care to explain?

Granted, the reporter wasn't a pilot who slanted the story in our direction but I thought they did a reasonably decent job, especially in getting AOPA involved and interviewed in the story.

I do wish they would have based the story more on the last pilot than the first. He was far more articulate.
__________________
Best,
Tim
C182A, N5057D
Ms. DueBeUs
H88 & 0T3



I think CP spelled it out quite clearly....... 3 out of 4 pilots harrassed because the CBP think they are god and above the law is VERY compelling... IMHO...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top