Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:11 AM - Full Lotus 1650's (Okanogan Lew)
2. 04:45 PM - Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness - Part 2 (Guy Buchanan)
3. 04:45 PM - Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness - Part 3 (Guy Buchanan)
4. 05:32 PM - Re: Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness - Part 2 (b d)
5. 06:53 PM - Re: Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness - Part 2 (b d)
6. 07:07 PM - Re: Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness - Part 1 (b d)
7. 09:24 PM - Re: Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness - Part 3 (b d)
8. 10:14 PM - Re: Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness - Part 3 (Guy Buchanan)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Full Lotus 1650's |
I have a set of 1650's for a Model V for sale on Barnstormers. Check it out.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=337975#337975
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness - Part 2 |
William,
I would agree completely with your assessment right up to the part where
the agent made the thinly-veiled threats regarding the vehicle search.
Given that neither the pilot flying the aircraft nor the passenger
matched the description of the suspect they were looking for, why ask to
search the plane?
That was clearly a fishing trip, and in my mind completely unnecessary
once it became apparent neither of the plane's occupants were of
interest in the matter at hand.
Agents often make the implication that you will somehow become of
greater interest and increase suspicion on yourself if you refuse to
allow a search, or that "it will go easier on you" if you cooperate.
These are, in fact, lies. The truth is your status as a suspect in the
eyes of the law does not change if you exercise your
constitutionally-protected rights. Indeed, proof that police used your
choice to exercise your rights as evidence of wrongdoing is grounds for
dismissal in court. Further, aside from making his/her job easier,
cooperation with an investigator will change nothing when it comes time
to pursue charges if the authorities discover contraband.
The accuracy of drug-sniffing dogs is coming more and more under fire in
the courts of late, despite a recent (2005) Supreme Court ruling that an
alert by a detector dog constitutes probable cause. Unfortunately, it
seems the court either ignored or was not made aware of factual studies
and logic in its ruling. The reality is some dogs are better than
others, and even the best dog with the most sensitive nose is only as
good as his handler. There is a complete lack of standardization and/or
testing when it comes to dog and handler training, which means dogs and
handlers trained by one agency might be much better than those supplied
by another. Additionally, there is mounting evidence that the dogs
(surprise!) are strongly influenced by their handlers' demeanor and
behavior
<http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/02/animal_behaviour>. In
other words, if the handler is sure there are drugs present, the chance
of an alert by the dog greatly increases.
There are many other problems with using a detector dog alert as
probable cause which you can read about here
<http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5818&context=expresso&sei-redir=1#search=%22%22Richard+Myers%22+dog+study+scent+north+carolina%22%20>.
In fact, this investigation by the Chicago Tribune
<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-canine-officers-20110105,0,7119364.story>
of data supplied by suburban Chicago police departments pegs detector
dogs' accuracy below 45%.
Why am I so concerned about this issue? Because the "probable cause"
generated by a detector dog alert can cause a great deal of trouble even
if a subsequent search turns up no evidence of illegal activity. In at
least one case
<http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/26/the-forfeiture-racket> a
citizen's property---including $17,500 found during the detector
dog-triggered search---was confiscated under Indiana state forfeiture
law based entirely on a detector dog alert. Forfeiture law is a natural
outgrowth of the 1970 RICO (Racketeering Influenced & Corrupt
Organization) statues, which was a law created to allow government to go
after mob profits. It eventually led to the Comprehensive Crime Control
Act of 1984, which lowered the bar for civil forfeiture. To seize
property, the government only has to show probable cause to believe that
it was connected to drug activity, which is the same standard cops use
to obtain search warrants. It was intended to motivate law enforcement
to seek civil forfeiture, and it's worked spectacularly. Indeed, many
departments count on forfeiture as part of their funding. The problem
for us ordinary folk is even if the owner of seized property isn't
charged with a crime, the property can still be held until the owner
"proves" the property wasn't used as part of criminal drug activity.
Obviously, this can lead to all kinds of problems when we're talking
about expensive assets like an airplane, which is why tactics such as
threats to bring out detector dogs are as infuriating as they are
successful in acquiring suspect cooperation. Many, including me
obviously, believe these tactics, in conjunction with civil asset
forfeiture laws, give law enforcement way more power that it should have
when it comes to civil rights.
If it were me, and I had the time -- since I know I have nothing to hide
-- I would force their hand, make them bring out the dogs and go through
the motions. The only way we'll ever get law enforcement to change the
way the courts view the use animals in this regard is to generate enough
data proving the inaccuracy of detector dogs. Only such data can lead to
a ruling that the use of detector dogs impinges on Constitutional rights.
There is a good write up on this in the last LOBO News which you can
download and read here
<http://www.lancairowners.com/newsletter/LOBONewsJan2011.pdf>.
*-- Mark*
************************
Here is a copy of a fax CBP sent. See if you can find the mistakes! I am
a bit surprised they believe they can detain you if you do not have your
pilot logbook onboard. LOL!!!!
Jeff
*************************************
i passed the copy to a friend and here is what he wrote back:
I just called that number, 866-247-2878.
I was handed off to Tony Martinez <sp> who said he was an aviation
enforcement specialist at the Air and Marine Operations Center in
Riverside,
Calif.
Based on the beeping I heard on the line, I assume the telephone call was
recorded.
He wanted to know who I was and who I represented or was "with."
I gave him my first and last name and said I'm simply a pilot in Florida.
The Reader's Digest version of our conversation, taken from memory:
I explained I had some questions about a document -- the one in question --
and read its title to him.
He asked where I got the document.
I said someone gave it to me. More importantly, I added, several of the six
document requirements are almost certainly incorrect, mentioning #5
(pilot's
logbook) and #6 (Form 337). I pointed out these aren't FAA requirements.
He said Form 337s are paperwork for modifications to the aircraft and must
be in the aircraft.
I said I thought the only Form 337 that must be carried in the aircraft was
one for the installation of extra fuel tanks.
He said I should contact the FAA with my concerns.
I said this is a Dept of Homeland Security guide, not an FAA document, so I
didn't think the appropriate action was to contact the FAA.
He said he was more concerned about where I got the document.
I explained I was worried I'd be confronted by law-enforcement officers at
an airport and would run into problems because I wasn't carrying all the
documents listed in the guide.
He said this was a "guide" and "they'll be talking to us." Further
back-and-forth made me realize he meant the officers would be in real-time
contact with Martinez's facility during such a confrontation.
I said this might not be the case, and I mentioned the John and Martha King
incident and one recently at a St. Louis airport, where the police thought
the aircraft was carrying a federal fugitive when in fact it contained a
lieutenant colonel in the Air Force Reserves who flew F22s.
I asked who in the DHS I should contact to get the guide corrected. He said
I could send my input to his facility.
He again mentioned his concern about my having a copy of the doc.
How do we push back against this? AOPA seems too distracted selling wine to
act on our behalf.
*************************
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness - Part 3 |
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness - Part 2 |
Folks, this is not something that's either about logic or right or wrong.
As in the Randy Weaver/ Ruby Ridge Syndrome, they (law enforcement)begin by
finding someone they think can help them do something, eyes, ears, messages
.
To get your cooperation, they may find something on you and if not they may
plant something on you and begin causing you misery until you cooperate and
agree to become an operative . . . all of the big boys do it CIA, FBI, ATF
and down the ladder. Yeh you can spend your life and your savings fighting
it because as you say "you didn't do anything wrong and will be found
innocent . . .well no one is innocent". As your record begins building you
become a tool, leverage for more projects. You will soon become their
operative (their dog) and they will be your handler. . . Do you really want
your life in the hands of the dogs handler? It's his word against the dogs
nose . . . the dog doesn't have to prove or disprove anything, if the
handler doesn't like you, he just says the dog postured and you were "it" .
. so prove otherwise . . . you really think these guys don't get warped wit
h
power after awhile even if they had good intentions to begin with . . .
would you bet your life on it? Go back and read the Randy Weaver/ Ruby
Ridge story plus a lot more.
So say you are the cop and someone is a little disrespectful to you and
doesn't want to cooperate, maybe flashes a few constitutional terms at you
.
. . just to prove your point you walk way over his rights just to show him
you can . . . you don't think that happens everyday to every little snotty
nosed, smart mouthed teen they don't like? . . . I've witnessed it. It can
happen to anyone no matter how clean they are. The Police feel they are at
war with the public . . . we are the bad guys . . . my advice is make a wid
e
birth around them . . . don't get involved . . . pay the fine and move on.
I
just wish I could learn to take my own advice . . .
It's the American way today . . .
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Guy Buchanan <gebuchanan@cox.net> wrote:
> William,
> I would agree completely with your assessment right up to the part where
> the agent made the thinly-veiled threats regarding the vehicle search. Gi
ven
> that neither the pilot flying the aircraft nor the passenger matched the
> description of the suspect they were looking for, why ask to search the
> plane?
>
> That was clearly a fishing trip, and in my mind completely unnecessary
> once it became apparent neither of the plane=92s occupants were of intere
st in
> the matter at hand.
> Agents often make the implication that you will somehow become of greater
> interest and increase suspicion on yourself if you refuse to allow a sear
ch,
> or that =93it will go easier on you=94 if you cooperate. These are, in fa
ct,
> lies. The truth is your status as a suspect in the eyes of the law does n
ot
> change if you exercise your constitutionally-protected rights. Indeed, pr
oof
> that police used your choice to exercise your rights as evidence of
> wrongdoing is grounds for dismissal in court. Further, aside from making
> his/her job easier, cooperation with an investigator will change nothing
> when it comes time to pursue charges if the authorities discover contraba
nd.
>
> The accuracy of drug-sniffing dogs is coming more and more under fire in
> the courts of late, despite a recent (2005) Supreme Court ruling that an
> alert by a detector dog constitutes probable cause. Unfortunately, it see
ms
> the court either ignored or was not made aware of factual studies and log
ic
> in its ruling. The reality is some dogs are better than others, and even
the
> best dog with the most sensitive nose is only as good as his handler. The
re
> is a complete lack of standardization and/or testing when it comes to dog
> and handler training, which means dogs and handlers trained by one agency
> might be much better than those supplied by another. Additionally, there
is
> mounting evidence that the dogs (surprise!) are strongly influenced by
> their handlers=92 demeanor and behavior<http://www.economist.com/blogs/ba
bbage/2011/02/animal_behaviour>.
> In other words, if the handler is sure there are drugs present, the chanc
e
> of an alert by the dog greatly increases.
> There are many other problems with using a detector dog alert as probabl
e
> cause which you can read about here<http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewconten
t.cgi?article=5818&context=expresso&sei-redir=1#search=%22%22Richar
d+Myers%22+dog+study+scent+north+carolina%22%20>.
> In fact, this investigation by the Chicago Tribune<http://www.chicagotri
bune.com/news/local/ct-met-canine-officers-20110105,0,7119364.story>of data
supplied by suburban Chicago police departments pegs detector dogs=92
> accuracy below 45%.
>
> Why am I so concerned about this issue? Because the =93probable cause=94
> generated by a detector dog alert can cause a great deal of trouble even
if
> a subsequent search turns up no evidence of illegal activity. In at least
> one case <http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/26/the-forfeiture-racket> a
> citizen=92s property=97including $17,500 found during the detector dog-tr
iggered
> search=97was confiscated under Indiana state forfeiture law based entirel
y on
> a detector dog alert. Forfeiture law is a natural outgrowth of the 1970 R
ICO
> (Racketeering Influenced & Corrupt Organization) statues, which was a law
> created to allow government to go after mob profits. It eventually led to
> the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, which lowered the bar for ci
vil
> forfeiture. To seize property, the government only has to show probable
> cause to believe that it was connected to drug activity, which is the sam
e
> standard cops use to obtain search warrants. It was intended to motivate
law
> enforcement to seek civil forfeiture, and it=92s worked spectacularly. In
deed,
> many departments count on forfeiture as part of their funding. The proble
m
> for us ordinary folk is even if the owner of seized property isn=92t char
ged
> with a crime, the property can still be held until the owner =93proves=94
the
> property wasn=92t used as part of criminal drug activity.
> Obviously, this can lead to all kinds of problems when we=92re talking a
bout
> expensive assets like an airplane, which is why tactics such as threats t
o
> bring out detector dogs are as infuriating as they are successful in
> acquiring suspect cooperation. Many, including me obviously, believe thes
e
> tactics, in conjunction with civil asset forfeiture laws, give law
> enforcement way more power that it should have when it comes to civil
> rights.
>
> If it were me, and I had the time ' since I know I have nothing to hide
' I
> would force their hand, make them bring out the dogs and go through the
> motions. The only way we=92ll ever get law enforcement to change the way
the
> courts view the use animals in this regard is to generate enough data
> proving the inaccuracy of detector dogs. Only such data can lead to a rul
ing
> that the use of detector dogs impinges on Constitutional rights.
> There is a good write up on this in the last LOBO News which you can dow
nload
> and read here<http://www.lancairowners.com/newsletter/LOBONewsJan2011.pdf
>
> .
>
> *-- Mark*
> ************************
>
> Here is a copy of a fax CBP sent. See if you can find the mistakes! I am
a
> bit surprised they believe they can detain you if you do not have your pi
lot
> logbook onboard. LOL!!!!
>
> Jeff
>
> *************************************
>
> i passed the copy to a friend and here is what he wrote back:
> I just called that number, 866-247-2878.
>
> I was handed off to Tony Martinez <sp> who said he was an aviation
> enforcement specialist at the Air and Marine Operations Center in
> Riverside,
> Calif.
>
> Based on the beeping I heard on the line, I assume the telephone call was
> recorded.
>
> He wanted to know who I was and who I represented or was "with."
>
> I gave him my first and last name and said I'm simply a pilot in Florida.
>
> The Reader's Digest version of our conversation, taken from memory:
>
> I explained I had some questions about a document -- the one in question
> --
> and read its title to him.
>
> He asked where I got the document.
>
> I said someone gave it to me. More importantly, I added, several of the s
ix
>
> document requirements are almost certainly incorrect, mentioning #5
> (pilot's
> logbook) and #6 (Form 337). I pointed out these aren't FAA requirements.
>
> He said Form 337s are paperwork for modifications to the aircraft and mus
t
> be in the aircraft.
>
> I said I thought the only Form 337 that must be carried in the aircraft w
as
>
> one for the installation of extra fuel tanks.
>
> He said I should contact the FAA with my concerns.
>
> I said this is a Dept of Homeland Security guide, not an FAA document, so
I
>
> didn't think the appropriate action was to contact the FAA.
>
> He said he was more concerned about where I got the document.
>
> I explained I was worried I'd be confronted by law-enforcement officers a
t
> an airport and would run into problems because I wasn't carrying all the
> documents listed in the guide.
>
> He said this was a "guide" and "they'll be talking to us." Further
> back-and-forth made me realize he meant the officers would be in real-tim
e
> contact with Martinez's facility during such a confrontation.
>
> I said this might not be the case, and I mentioned the John and Martha Ki
ng
>
> incident and one recently at a St. Louis airport, where the police though
t
> the aircraft was carrying a federal fugitive when in fact it contained a
> lieutenant colonel in the Air Force Reserves who flew F22s.
>
> I asked who in the DHS I should contact to get the guide corrected. He sa
id
>
> I could send my input to his facility.
>
> He again mentioned his concern about my having a copy of the doc.
>
> How do we push back against this? AOPA seems too distracted selling wine
to
>
> act on our behalf.
>
> *************************
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness - Part 2 |
What happened to Part 2?
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Guy Buchanan <gebuchanan@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness - Part 1 |
Let me add a comment or two . . . Most of us never rock the boat and fall
out of the water but let me tell you, Bob got off nice and easy. I just had
an experience with the local police in Henderson NV and found out how
corrupt they really are all the way from the parking lady to the Mayor and
they are open and unashamed of it. After my incedent where an officer burst
into my house without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. I made
appointments to see every one, the Captain, the Chief, my Council Woman and
then the Mayor and the IAB . . . what a joke, they all knew, they thought i
t
was quite funny, they opening laughed, even IAB, knowing there was little I
could do. I asked to start a Citizen Revue Committee and they acked as if
they never heard of one. After I asked each about it and they denied knowin
g
about it, I pointed them to the NRS that covers it. Unfortunetly we can not
mandate them to put one in place. As I'm learning more and more about it,
the places that do have them have trouble keeping members and leaders since
the cops seem to find bad stuff on them and in their homes, drugs and such
.
. . . Bob is lucky they didn't plant something on him or his plane . . . As
I said, once a person happens into their lair, they can do anything . . .
Beware . . . don't count on your rights, they are only old sayings anymore.
They can and will go to no end to prove a point so be nice . . . . it ain't
a free and just country like we were taught.
I appreciate this letter, I hope everyone reads it.
Bruce
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Guy Buchanan <gebuchanan@cox.net> wrote:
> Dear Kitfoxers,
> I have been following a thread on the Lancair list called "[LML] Re:
> beware, you may be searched!". I have selected the substantial entries an
d
> copied them below. None of them are mine. There is no attribution or time
or
> anything but the for the first entry on 4/19. It has nothing directly to
do
> with building Kitfoxes but a lot to do with flying them. I do not provide
> this information to generate a lot of government hate mail, nor am I real
ly
> looking for constructive suggestions. I think this information needs to b
e
> spread as far and wide as possible, with as much publicity as possible, t
o
> make sure the public knows what's going on.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Guy Buchanan - List moderator
> Ramona, CA
> Kitfox IV-1200 / 592-C / Warp 3cs / 500 hrs. and grounded
>
> ***************************************
>
> On Apr 19, 2011, at 3:13 PM, Bob Rickard wrote:
>
> Fellow LML=92ers
>
> It seems inevitable that the govt will search you at some point. Just so
me
> info on what happened to me yesterday, you can hopefully use this to reac
t
> appropriately for your situation. This is the third incident just at our
> little airport in Missouri of this happening=85..
>
> Bob Rickard
> IV-P
>
> On 18 April, 2011, I filed IFR from KGEU to K1H0 direct, with my wife on
> board. At 0845L, I departed KGEU VFR and picked up my filed IFR clearanc
e
> to K1H0 at FL210 with ABQ center. The flight was uneventful and I cancel
led
> IFR approximately 10 miles from K1H0 with St. Louis Approach and landed a
t
> 1443L. Upon landing and taxi to my hanger (P3) at Creve Coeur Airport, I
> was surrounded by 6 Maryland Heights Police cars and about 10 officers.
I
> exited the plane and was approached by the supervisor and asked if I had
any
> identification. I produced my military ID (I am a LtCol in the Air Force
> Reserve flying F-22=92s) as well as my driver=92s license, and asked the
> supervisor what the problem was. He told me that he got a =93tip=94 from
the
> Federal Government that there may be a federal fugitive on board by the n
ame
> of Robert Mcrae. He wasn=92t sure of the name and asked me if I knew any
one
> by a name similar to that, to which I answered =93no=94 to all. He also
stated
> that he was surprised to see a woman in the plane with me since his
> informant said there would be two men in the plane. I inquired as to who
> would give a tip like that, and he was vague. A this point my wife exite
d
> the plane and was asked to produce her ID as well and was questioned as t
o
> what we were doing and where we were going and where we came from. It w
as
> apparent to the supervisor pretty quickly that my wife and I were not
> federal fugitives as they ran our ID=92s, but he asked to search the airp
lane
> anyway. I told him that I was aware of my rights and he could not search
> anything without a warrant, and he was quick to add =93or your permission
=94 and
> =93I could have the dogs come out=94. (side note ' they don=92t need a
warrant to
> have the dogs check out your aircraft ' if the dogs find something and
> indicate, then they have probable cause to search you without a warrant.
If
> the dogs find nothing they cannot search your aircraft until a warrant is
> issued). I told him that I would play nice, had nothing to hide, and tha
t
> my plan was to take my belongings out of the airplane and put them in my
car
> to go home, and I would allow him to see what I took out and visually see
> inside the cockpit and baggage compartment, but I was not allowing a sear
ch
> of the airplane. He agreed to this. I took my 2 pieces of luggage out of
> the back and showed him the contents briefly (not a complete search but
> opened up the zipper and showed clothes on top) as well as the couple of
> vases we had bought in Phoenix and lunch/sodas we had in the cockpit. Th
ey
> saw nothing of interest and returned my wife=92s ID, but kept mine and ma
de
> further calls. The supervisor indicated =93I=92m on overtime, I am outta
here=94
> and left, but another officer checked with =93EPIC=94 (unsure of the spel
ling)
> which he told me was an international consortium that traded information
on
> travel, etc. He told me he was aware of my trip earlier this year to Mex
ico
> and the Cayman Islands (honeymoon cruise) but there was nothing to get me
in
> trouble. He then returned my ID and let us go.
>
> **************************
>
> check this out... they even show us how they are doing it. we are all
> suspects....
>
> http://nemo.cbp.gov/opa/videos/2010/amoc/amoc.wmv
>
> ***************************
>
> We were able to get a copy of the fax that was sent to the local police.
> The =93Tip=94 came from Customs and Border Patrol in CA. And the local P
olice
> chief was actually apologetic because he knew it was bogus. The tip itse
lf
> is BS. They made it up. IF they had been watching me or investigating m
e
> they would have known my wife was with me and not some dude. That is the
> only part that is really a violation, they are making up an excuse to get
> the locals excited, and then seeing what they find. Another example was
a
> guy accused of transporting computer chips that were stolen. I can imagi
ne
> them making up stories over the coffee in the morning.
>
> How would the public react if any Fed agency routinely made up tips so th
e
> cops would come to your house and want to search? Imagine the news
> coverage. That is the same thing going on here. If they have something
on
> you, then absolutely go for it. But they did not in the 3 cases we know
> about just at our local airport.
>
> The lesson you derived is correct though. Know your rights, and also kno
w
> how you can help them do their job without violating your rights. That i
s
> the best thing you can do (if innocent) while saying the least amount
> possible.
>
> Bob R
>
> ***************************
>
> If you want to read more on this see my article in the January issue of
> LOBO re: ramp check. Www.lancairowners.com <http://www.lancairowners.com/
> You have a right to not be searched unless a warrant is served. A warrant
> must be signed by a judge based on probable cause. In Bob's case Monday,
> using a drug dog to look for a fugitive does not fly. Bob could have stoo
d
> on principle and not allowed a consensual search. If they ask for a
> consensual search and you give it then you have waived your Fourth Amendm
ent
> rights.
>
> If you do not consent to a search then the police may detain you. Ask if
> you are being detained or arrested or if you are free to leave. If the
> police tell you are free to leave-- then leave.
>
> Watch the video I posted on this subject from Customs and Border Patrol.
> CBP has specifically targeted General Aviation as a threat to the country
> and is monitoring all GA flights via radar and other methods. If you are
on
> an IFR flight plan and change you destination or divert, ATC will ask you
> for a reason for changing your destination. It may be for fuel, to pee or
> just take a break but ATC will not let you off the hook without a reason.
> Why? Because CBP wants to know.
>
> If you want to fly to Mexico, Canada or the Bahamas you must get permissi
on
> from CBP to leave the country. Yes permission to LEAVE.
>
> Beware and fly safe.
>
> Jeff Edwards
>
> ***************************
>
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness - Part 3 |
How come no part 2 or 3, am I doing something wrong?
Bruce
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Guy Buchanan <gebuchanan@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness - Part 3 |
On 4/24/2011 9:20 PM, b d wrote:
> How come no part 2 or 3, am I doing something wrong?
Hi everybody. Gave up on Part 3 because it's apparently too big to post.
It's a pdf. I got everything posted over at Team Kitfox so you can see
the attachment there if you want to. Sorry about the problems and all
the blank posts.
Guy Buchanan - List moderator
Ramona, CA
Kitfox IV-1200 / 592-C / Warp 3cs / 500 hrs. and grounded
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|