FAA and Reporting requirements

[FN FAL]

States sue Federal Government over "no child left behind act".

http://www.nea.org/lawsuit/index.html

 

[FN FAL]

This ruling was affirmed on February 23, 2001 by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Based on these significant court victories, the named plaintiffs have sought an interim award of expenses and attorneys’ fees in the amount of $14,528,467.71 under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). Under EAJA, a party that has won its case in whole or in part is called the “prevailing party” and if the criteria of EAJA are met, that party is eligible for an award of expenses and attorneys fees paid by the government. Such an award, as here, includes costs such as attorneys’ fees and fees paid to experts. In general, the EAJA award is calculated using a reasonable hourly rate and the time expended by the individual lawyer or expert.

Indians sue federal government under EAJA...

http://forums.flightinfo.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=842504

 

[FN FAL]

Corrupt LAPD sued by convicted murderer under the civil remedies portion of the R.I.C.O. Act...

​

Federal Judge Allows RICO to Be Used vs. LAPD

Federal District Judge William Rea ruled yesterday that anti-racketeering laws can be used in a current case against the Los Angeles Police Department and officers accused of corrupt acts in the continually unfolding Rampart Division police scandal. The court’s ruling will allow the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) law to be used in a case in which plaintiffs are accusing LAPD officers of beating and false arrests, and arguing that the LAPD knew of and condoned these actions. Applying this statute to the case would treat the LAPD as a “criminal enterprise” that conspired to bring false drug charges, plant false evidence and brutalize citizens. Since the scandal erupted, over 100 criminal cases have been overturned. The LAPD has also been previously accused of systematically covering up brutality by officers toward their wives and girlfriends.
​

 

[jetstar1]

What is your point here FN FAL? (retard!)

 

[FN FAL]

Wrongfully convicted man sues county government over wrongful conviction...

WHITELAW, Wis. - The Avery family and the police don't mix. Never have.

Friday night, just hours after prosecutors announced Steven Avery would face a murder charge in the death of a Hilbert woman, his older brother, Chuck, popped the trunks of his family's cars. He said he wanted to make sure Manitowoc County sheriff's deputies hadn't planted more trouble for them.
"We're really on edge," he said outside his brother Earl's farmhouse as darkness fell.
Steven Avery spent 18 years in prison for a rape he didn't commit before DNA evidence exonerated him. He filed a $36 million wrongful conviction lawsuit against Manitowoc County.

 

[FN FAL]

State sued over sexual harrasment...

State settles current sexual-harassment suit

Statesman Journal

February 4, 2005
The state has reached an out-of-court settlement in a sexual-harassment case filed by a former Western Oregon University student against Gary Welander, a veteran professor at the school.
Rosemary Garcia, hospitalized with terminal cancer, accepted the $65,000 settlement, Martin Dolan, Garcia's lawyer said Thursday.
This is the second settlement of a sexual-harassment complaint brought against a WOU professor. In 2001, the state agreed to pay student Leah Mangis $110,000 to settle her complaint against the university and professor Norm Eburne. Eburne since has left the university.
George Pernsteiner, acting chancellor of the Oregon University System, said Thursday that he has asked Western Oregon President Philip W. Conn and Provost Jem Spectar to review the school's policies covering sexual harassment and consensual relationships, as well as its procedures for dealing with such complaints.
Pernsteiner said he called for the review after learning that Garcia's case was not the first of its kind involving a WOU professor.
Pernsteiner said students should not be subjected to sexual harassment or feel fearful about reporting it.
"We want them to feel safe and secure," he said.
Dolan, who described his client as gravely ill, said she was satisfied with the settlement.
"Money is always a component in these cases, but almost always there is a component of wanting to change something," he said. "I think there is real change going to happen with this. Her words were 'I'm just glad I could do something to help women who are going to be at Western Oregon in the future.'"
Oregon Attorney General spokesman Kevin Neely and Conn confirmed that the state had settled with Garcia.
In November, the state offered to pay Garcia $65,000 to settle her complaint but state lawyers later withdrew the offer. The state reopened settlement negotiations with Garcia shortly after the Statesman Journal published stories about the former student's multimillion-dollar lawsuit.
On Jan. 11, Dolan filed a $12.6 million lawsuit against Welander and the university on Garcia's behalf in U.S. District Court in Portland, claiming that Welander "visited her office regularly, gave her money, initiated physical contact in the form of hugging, and asked intimate questions of a personal and sexual nature."
Initially, the lawsuit also named WOU speech professor and academic adviser Peter Courtney, who also is the president of the Oregon Senate, as a defendant.
Neely said Thursday that Courtney's name has been dropped from the lawsuit.
Welander was asked to resign as chairman of the school's Teacher Education Division in June after Garcia complained to university officials.
In an interview late Thursday, Welander said he thought that he had been victimized by Garcia.
He said he ended a yearlong relationship with Garcia in December 2003. Shortly thereafter, Garcia began stalking him, threatening him and his girlfriend and calling them frequently to harass them, he said.
"I loved her," Welander said. "I cared about her. I had a relationship with her. Then I tried to get out of it."
Garcia's lawsuit alleged that faculty members reported their concerns about Welander's relationship with Garcia to a university dean in April 2003 but that no action was taken.
The suit also claimed that staff members and administrators were aware of Welander's "history of improper relationships with his students and of his predatory nature."
The university's internal investigation into Garcia's complaint was completed Tuesday, Conn said. Welander will remain on leave through next term, he said.

 

[A Squared]

just a little update after speaking to an Aviation attorney today. He stated to me that since i did not have an active medical (expired after 24 months) at the time that i was not required to notify the FAA (the letter stated in 61.15. But he stated that when i apply for a new medical that in 18V i have to put previously reported in 92 (obviously) and THEN state the offense (which was not a conviction) in 94. He sounded pretty sure of himself on this so i am wondering if anyone can shed a little more light on this for me. I still have yet to get in touch with a few more attorneys to get there perspective. Just trying to do the right thing here without screwing myself!

OK, I think you may be getting bad advice. First, I don't think the attorney is correct about not needing to report it if you don't have a medical. Read this NTSB decision:

http://www.ntsb.gov/o_n_o/docs/AVIATION/4208.PDF

I think it's very applicable and relevant.

As for reporting it as "reviously reported" I'm confused, I thought you had not reported it? If so, don't say on the medical application that you reported it. If you do, that's falsification and the FAA will likely *revoke* your certificate instead of just suspending it. If hte lawyer is advising you to put it as "previously reported" when it's not (nd it's a little unclear to me if this is hte case) then that lawyer is giving you very bad advice.

I would proceed very carefully here.

 

[midlifeflyer]

just a little update after speaking to an Aviation attorney today. He stated to me that since i did not have an active medical (expired after 24 months) at the time that i was not required to notify the FAA (the letter stated in 61.15. But he stated that when i apply for a new medical that in 18V i have to put previously reported in 92 (obviously) and THEN state the offense (which was not a conviction) in 94. He sounded pretty sure of himself on this so i am wondering if anyone can shed a little more light on this for me. I still have yet to get in touch with a few more attorneys to get there perspective. Just trying to do the right thing here without screwing myself!

Speak to a few more attorneys.

And, this is important, don't assume that your description of the events is accurate from a legal standpoint. Some of the details about whether or not something is a "conviction" or an alcohol-related action that might be a "motor vehicle action" under 61.15 are highly technical and can only be determined accurately by looking at the court or administrative documents involved.

I don't know whether the attorney's advice was correct or not. But if you received it through an informal phone call without the attorney looking at the relevant documents, I'd go a bit further for my own peace of mind.

 

[jetstar1]

A squared,

Thanks for the advise. Yes i did report the 92 arrest to the FAA right after i got my Jan 92 medical for the Feb offense but did not fly after that and got the other offense (my medical was expired) in 94 which was NOT reported. According to the PDF you supplied maybe i should send a letter to them about the 94 arrest and then report it on my next medical (if i start flying again) and deal with it. I was told that since it was over 10 yrs ago that as long as i report it even after the fact in this case that i would not be severly repremanded(hopefully) and that this will be off my FAA record if i get a suspended in 5 years.

 

[A Squared]

A squared,

Thanks for the advise. Yes i did report the 92 arrest to the FAA right after i got my Jan 92 medical for the Feb offense but did not fly after that and got the other offense (my medical was expired) in 94 which was NOT reported. According to the PDF you supplied maybe i should send a letter to them about the 94 arrest and then report it on my next medical (if i start flying again) and deal with it. I was told that since it was over 10 yrs ago that as long as i report it even after the fact in this case that i would not be severly repremanded(hopefully) and that this will be off my FAA record if i get a suspended in 5 years.

OK, I misunderstood you about the reporting on hte medical app. I see wht you are saying now. That said, I still think your attorney is incorrect on 2 points:

1) even inactive plots are required to know the regulations and comply with them, if you hold a pilot certificate, you are required to report the DUI, regardless of you medical certificate or level of piloting activity. THis should be clear form the NTSB decision I posted.

2) Reporting a DUI on (or similar occurence which is required to report) your medical application absolutely does not fulfill the requiremnts of 61.15 you haveto send the notification to the address listed in the reg, and disclosing on a medical app will not suffice, even if it is within the required time period. THere have been many pilots who have been burned by this, and the FAA has been very consistent on it.

I'd get some second opinions if I were you. Good luck.

 

[jetstar1]

Please Remove This Thread