Becoming a pilot with an arrest...

FN FAL

Freight Dawgs Rule
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Posts
8,573
Total Time
7,000+
SkyBoy1981 said:
Interesting thread. I was driving home from work a while back and I came up on this cop standing beside the hood of his car pointing what appeared to be a gun directly at me. At first it scared the hell out of me, then as I got a bit closer I realized it was just his radar gun. The way that he was standing there aiming it at me made it appear differently though. I thought about persuing it as it didn't seem like proper procedure, but I never did.
Chances are he was pointing LIDAR at you. LIDAR is laser or Infra-red and is best shot without anything between you and him...like a window with bugs smashed on it.

With the pencil thin beam of LIDAR, he has to aim that thing at your car and try to catch your front license plate or the headlights. Which would explain why he was standing there really intent on pointing that thing at you.

Any surface that would scatter the light from the LIDAR would not be good for nailing you...so the top of the hood or roof would be bad as would the side of the car.
 

NYCPilot

Incorporated.
Joined
Nov 29, 2001
Posts
645
Total Time
.00001
I was looking at an application the other day and it only asks if you've been convicted of a felony in the past 10 years or of one of the crimes listed that are disqualifiying.

This may not necessarily apply to the first poster, but it seems that if you keep your record clean of criminal arrests for 10 years, that it wouldnt matter if you were arrested prior to this period.

Are employers not allowed to hold arrests against you if its been more than 10 years.

Why is the FBI a 10 year check. Is this arbitrary or is there a law that prohibits some form of discrimination for offenses commmited so long ago.
 

FN FAL

Freight Dawgs Rule
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Posts
8,573
Total Time
7,000+
NYCPilot said:
Are employers not allowed to hold arrests against you if its been more than 10 years?
All you need to prove in order to file a RICO lawsuit is a "pattern of extortion".

Our employer sent out a questionaire not to long ago. The cover letter was innocent enough..."Well guys, it's that time of the year again, we need you to fill this form out so that we can renew our company car insurance. Don't forget to sign the waiver at the bottom!"

I read that thing and there was no way I was going to sign it, just on principle alone. They pretty much wanted you to waive your right to sue in event there was damaging or false information. AND they wanted you to authorize any police officer, police agency, sheriff, parish, county, village, township, burg, state agency, meter maid, ordinance enforcement officer, parole and probation agent, DNR agent, feds, school crossing guard, bailiff, court reporter, municipal parking authority, transit authority, clerk of courts, bail bondsman, comptroller, controller and dog catcher, to release any and all information regarding you...for company car insurance. Jeeze, we took the 10 year background check when we applied for the job. Wasn't that enough?

What was funniest, was when me and another co-worker decided we weren't signing, some lilly liver said, "If you don't have nothing to hide, sign it you trouble makers!" I hawk an oyster on you, lilly liver man...pattuie!

The other guy and me refused to sign and eventually company sent revised forms...one that asked for a one time search of DMV and National Drivers Registry. As it should be.

Don't sign nothing unless you know what it is and whatever you do don't sign away your rights to sue when they ask you for something like that. The only reason they wanted the waiver was because they knew they were wrong to ask for that information in the first place.
 

soarby007

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 7, 2004
Posts
176
Total Time
7500
Well, here's the deal on criminal records.

You do a felony it pretty much sticks with you for life, unless you can apply and persuade the governor, or President, depending on whether it was federal or state, for a PARDON. That's the only thing that gives you a clean slate. Some employers and some governments don't really care if the felony is there, some apply a time limit, such as the 10 years you are referring to. Of course this probably depends on the nature of the felony. Most would not consider a person such as Jeffery Dahlmer after 10 years. An extreme example, but the facts of the case and circumstances would be considered when making a determination as to whether or not a company or employer wants to forget all offenses after 10 years.

The fact is, a felony is a felony and has consequences sometimes lasting a lifetime.

As far as a RICO lawsuit, get real. You are talking more than proving a pattern of extortion, and I know you are not trying to simplify a complex law, but it is a bit of a stretch to think it is that simple.

What would seem to be reasonable is not necessarily always the case.
 

pilotmiketx

Registerd User
Joined
Jul 13, 2003
Posts
345
Total Time
oodles
FN FAL said:
I read that thing and there was no way I was going to sign it, just on principle alone. They pretty much wanted you to waive your right to sue in event there was damaging or false information. AND they wanted you to authorize any police officer, police agency, sheriff, parish, county, village, township, burg, state agency, meter maid, ordinance enforcement officer, parole and probation agent, DNR agent, feds, school crossing guard, bailiff, court reporter, municipal parking authority, transit authority, clerk of courts, bail bondsman, comptroller, controller and dog catcher, to release any and all information regarding you...for company car insurance. Jeeze, we took the 10 year background check when we applied for the job. Wasn't that enough?

Yep. Probably some overpaid, underworked HR flunkie wrote the form and (maybe) had it OK'd by the half-drunk, always on the golf course house counsel. I'm sure it constituted the bulk of their productivity for the last 2 quarters. Scary thing is nobody else questioned it.
 

FN FAL

Freight Dawgs Rule
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Posts
8,573
Total Time
7,000+
soarby007 said:
As far as a RICO lawsuit, get real. You are talking more than proving a pattern of extortion, and I know you are not trying to simplify a complex law, but it is a bit of a stretch to think it is that simple.

What would seem to be reasonable is not necessarily always the case.
Any person who operates or manages an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity may be in violation of the RICO Act. Any group may be a RICO enterprise regardless of whether its members wear pinstripes, poster boards, fatigues or hoods
OK, since you didn't do like a good soldier would do and at least dubya dubya dubya dot google dot com, "RICO LAWSUITS" before answering, here it goes...do I have a RICO CLAIM?

And yea, I was just being facetious when I posted the rico comment in my post, but there was a hidden agenda there. That agenda is that if you are being treated to a pattern of illegal acts by an entity, or a person, or a group of persons, keep your yap shut, document the activity and then whip this bugger out on them in federal court civil suit. I'm sure the US Airways pilots are just about ready to do it, as racketeering was one of their claims in the press release.

More available at http://www.ricoact.com/

This is by far the most common question that I receive at Ricoact.com. There is no simple answer to this question because the answer depends upon the unique facts of each case.

I have found, however, that a large percentage of potential RICO claims are undermined by the following considerations:
  • A RICO claim cannot exist in the absence of criminal activity. The simplest way to put this concept is: no crime - no RICO violation. This rule applies even in the context of civil RICO claims. Every RICO claim must be based upon a violation of one of the crimes listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). The RICO Act refers to such criminal activity as racketeering activity. RICO claims cannot be based upon breach of contract, broken promises, negligence, defective product design, failed business transactions, or any number of other factual scenarios that may give rise to other claims under the common law. This being said, a RICO claim can be based upon violations of the criminal mail and wire fraud statutes. The mail and wire fraud statutes are very broad. Some creative lawyers have succeeded in arguing that the mail and wire fraud statutes have been violated by fact patterns that superficially appear to give rise only to claims of negligence, breach of contract, and other actions giving rise to common law rights. If a RICO claim is based only upon violations of the mail or wire fraud statutes, however, courts are likely to subject the claims to stricter scrutiny. Courts look more favorably upon RICO claims based upon true criminal behavior, such as bribery, kickbacks, extortion, obstruction of justice, and clearly criminal schemes that are advanced by the use of the mails and wires.
  • RICO addresses long-term, not one-shot, criminal activity. Not only must a RICO claim be based upon criminal activity, but the criminal acts must constitute a "pattern" of criminal activity. A single criminal act, short-term criminal conduct, or criminal actions that bear no relationship to each other will not give rise to a RICO claim. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that criminal actions constitute a "pattern" only if they are related and continuous. In order to be "related," the criminal acts must involve the same victims, have the same methods of commission, involve the same participants, or be related in some other fashion. A pattern may be sufficiently continuous if the criminal actions occurred over a substantial period of time or posed a threat of indefinite duration. The former patterns are referred to as closed-ended patterns; the latter patterns are referred to as open-ended patterns. Accordingly, even if you have been injured by a criminal act, you will not have a RICO claim unless that criminal act is part of a larger pattern of criminal activity.
  • Your claim may be barred by the statute of limitations if you discovered or reasonably should have discovered your injury four or more years ago. Many people are mistaken that civil RICO claims are not subject to a statute of limitations. True, Congress failed to include a statute of limitations when it passed the RICO Act, but the United States Supreme Court has remedied that oversight and imposed a four-year statute of limitations on all civil RICO claims. Civil Rico's statute of limitations begins to run when the victim discovers or reasonably should have discovered its injury. Many people also believe that the statute of limitations is reset every time a new criminal act is committed - this is not true. Once a victim is aware or should be aware of its injury, the victim has four years to discover the remaining elements of its claim and bring suit. A victim cannot sit on its rights and refrain from filing suit in the face of known injuries. That being said, however, there are several equitable doctrines that may toll or suspend the running of the statute of limitations. If a defendant fraudulently conceals facts that are essential to the victim's ability to purse its rights, the running of the statute of limitations may be tolled. In addition, acts of duress, such as "if you sue me, I'll kill you," may toll the running of the statute of limitations. All tolling doctrines are based upon whether it is fair, under the circumstances, to bar the victim's claims on the basis of the running of the statute of limitations. Also, if a defendant engages in a new pattern of racketeering, that causes new and independent injuries, a new limitations period may apply to those new and independent injuries.
Of course, these are merely general considerations. Consult with an attorney to determine whether the facts of your particular case give rise to a RICO claim.
 
Top