Security Aviation-Anchorage

[FN FAL]

We still don't know what you are talking about. If it was just about a $200 tax, why was he denied bail for so long?

Uhhhhhh...cause his wife is pidapino and he likes to galavant around the world and can fly an airplane? Can you say, FLIGHT RISK? Duhhhhhhhh.

 

[HangerRat]

Uhhhhhh...cause his wife is pidapino and he likes to galavant around the world and can fly an airplane? Can you say, FLIGHT RISK? Duhhhhhhhh.

Ok, Why did they indict the entire company then? Why did they confiscate an entire fleet of aircraft? You should try not being so abrasive and maybe you would get your point across. You might make more sense if you did a little research rather than spew out pages of useless unrelated mumbo jumbo.

 

[FN FAL]

Ok, Why did they indict the entire company then? Why did they confiscate an entire fleet of aircraft? You should try not being so abrasive and maybe you would get your point across. You might make more sense if you did a little research rather than spew out pages of useless unrelated mumbo jumbo.

Magistrate John Roberts did not let the two sides argue the matter very long, as it strayed from the purpose of the hearing: to determine whether the government had probable cause to hold Kane in jail.

At the heart of that decision was the charge against Kane: failure to register an explosive device.

The prosecution laid out its evidence to the court. They said they had four witnesses -- three former or current Security Aviation employees and the TSA agent -- as well as the two launchers themselves.

I think you would have answered your own question, had you bothered to read the article you posted.

One, there's not one mention of the "whole company" being indicted. Two, had they been indicted, it would only make sense that it was because they had held the item in their hands, which as even a child knows...is possession.

 

[HangerRat]

I think you would have answered your own question, had you bothered to read the article you posted.

One, there's not one mention of the "whole company" being indicted. Two, had they been indicted, it would only make sense that it was because they had held the item in their hands, which as even a child knows...is possession.

Do you realize there is more than just this one article? And a lot more to this story? The whole company was indicted. They seized a whole bunch of planes.

You still make no sense. I am a proud gun owner and pilot and you make us all look bad! You make no sense and noone cares to read the extensive crap that you post. Make your point simply and to the point and you will get more respect. And don't talk about something that you are not familiar with.

 

[HangerRat]

More only tax issues!

http://www.ktuu.com/cms/anmviewer.asp?a=4397&z=1


http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/security_aviation/story/7620671p-7531639c.html

 

[HangerRat]

Being wrong is easy for you, isn't it?

I think you would have answered your own question, had you bothered to read the article you posted.

One, there's not one mention of the "whole company" being indicted. Two, had they been indicted, it would only make sense that it was because they had held the item in their hands, which as even a child knows...is possession.

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/7475727p-7385950c.html

The government's investigation of Security Aviation Inc. and at least one of its officials took a new turn Thursday with the announcement that both the company and the official were indicted on federal weapons charges.

But for the first time, the longtime Anchorage air charter and medevac business is a named defendant.
The company faces three charges: possession of unregistered destructive devices, attempted possession of the devices and transportation of them.