TSA pilots to be executed if found blocking Go-Jet's radio transmissions!

[PilotSkydiver]

I think you folks are taking the original post the wrong way.
I don't think the poster was condoning the actions mentioned in the memo. I think he just did not like the method of delivery. TSA Management actually adding the threat of death on the memo... Out of all the jobs I've had in my life (including the army) I was never threatened with DEATH. That part could have been left out of the memo and it still could have had the desired effect.
It was another in a long list of threats by TSA management to the pilots... First was the "doom and gloom" memo before the vote for the G0-Jet's Flying, then this memo, then the we're going to have to furlough memo... This could have been written in a little better manner

 

[tjsatter]

Any action taken by a TSA employee which brings discredit upon our company will be dealt with swiftly and decisively up to and including termination.

That pretty much covers the establishment of gayjets so why aren't those clowns fired?

tj

 

[FN FAL]

I believe it was a federal crime before 9/11

Be the first kid on your block to be tried under the USA PATRIOT ACT.

10/5/05 - Posted from the Daily Record newsroom
Trial date set for Parsippany man accused of shining a laser at aircraft
David W. Banach, the Parsippany man charged under the federal Patriot Act for allegedly shining a hand-held laser at two aircrafts last winter, is scheduled to go on trial Nov. 28 in Newark.

Jury selection in the nationally-publicized case is expected to start Nov. 21, the deputy clerk for U.S. District Judge John Lifland said on Wednesday.

Banach, 38, faces up to 20 years in prison on one count under Section 1993 of the Patriot Act, which prohibits "terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against mass transportation systems"-- though prosecutors concede he is not a terrorist.

He also faces up to 10 years in prison on two counts of making false statements to law enforcement officers after federal, state and local authorities stormed his home on New Year's Eve and interrogated him.

Banach, who was indicted in March, has pleaded innocent to all charges.

"We're looking forward to presenting his defense," Ashley Witney, assistant to Banach's attorney, Gina Mendola Longarzo, said on Wednesday afternoon.

A spokesman for U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie did not immediately return a phone call.

Lifland, in a ruling Sept. 15, denied Longarzo's motion to throw out the main charge. The judge said that while the Patriot Act was adopted in response to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, nothing in its language or legislative history in Congress appeared to prohibit its use against non-terrorist defendants.

Lawrence S. Lustberg of Chatham, who filed a defense brief on behalf of the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey, argued in court three weeks ago that Banach was at worst guilty of a "prank" that should have been addressed under state laws against criminal mischief.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher Gramiccioni countered that only the law's language, not what prompted it, was relevant. He noted that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, was adopted in response to organized crime but later was used to prosecute a wide range of criminal defendants.

Authorities claim that Banach pointed a green, hand-held laser into a charter aircraft that was en route to Teterboro Airport on Dec. 29, temporarily blinding both pilots.

Two days later, one of the pilots returned to the same skies in a Port Authority helicopter with law enforcement officers to try to locate the laser's source.

While circling overhead, the helicopter was struck with a similar laser beam, authorities said. A crew member shined a spotlight on Banach's house and authorities stormed the home.

Longarzo has said that Banach and one of his daughters were directing the laser pointer into the sky that night, and they didn't realize that it posed any hazard to aircraft.

Prior to his arrest, Banach lived a very quiet life, friends and family said at a $100-a-plate fundraiser for his legal defense in July. He was content to go fishing on weekends, help out with his daughters' Girl Scout activities and collect various gadgets.

Everything changed, they said, with his arrest and the national news it generated. Banach, a fiber optic cable installer, said he had been unable to find work.

 

[FN FAL]

Alaska v. Coon, Frye, Daubert and you!

Alaska v. Coon, is located appropriately at "touchngo.com"

http://touchngo.com/sp/html/sp-5091.htm

If you say something on the radio and they nab you with voice identification evidence, make sure you let your attorney know about the Frye and Daubert arguments...

STANDARDS OF ADMISSIBILITY

Prior to 1993 there were two main standards of admissibility which had been applied to voice identification evidence; the Frye test and the Federal Rules of Evidence (and the rules of evidence of the various states). The Frye test originated from Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia135 in a decision rejecting admissibility of a systolic blood pressure deception test (a forerunner of the polygraph test). The court stated that admission of this novel technique was dependent on its acceptance by the scientific community.

"Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs".136

Out of forty published opinions prior to 1993 deciding the admissibility of voice identification evidence, twenty-three courts applied the Frye standard or a standard very similar to Frye. Sixteen of the twenty-three courts rejected the admission of such evidence. Six of these courts held the admission of voice identification evidence by the trial court was harmless error and affirmed the conviction or judgment. Eight of the sixteen stated that although voice identification evidence had not yet met the required standard of scientific acceptability, their decision was not intended to foreclose future admission when such standards were met. Two of these courts denied admission because they felt a single witness could not speak for the entire scientific community regarding the acceptance issue.

Seven courts applied the test and found the requirements of Frye had been met. Of the thirteen courts applying a standard of admissibility different from Frye, only one, the Free court, rejected voice identification evidence.

There are three problems with the Frye standard; at what point is the principle of "sufficiently established" determined, at what point is "general acceptance" reached, and what is the proper definition of "the particular field in which it belongs".

The trial court in People v. Siervonti 138 noted the lack of research in this area saying "one only wishes that the last twelve years had been spent in research and not in attempting to get the method into the courts".139

The Frye test has been criticized as not being the appropriate test to use for the admission of voice identification evidence. This standard was established and applied to the admission of a type of evidence which is very different from voice identification. In Frye the court was concerned with the admission of a test designed to determine if a person was telling the truth or not. This type of evidence invades the province of the finder of fact. Voice identification evidence belongs in the general classification of identification evidence which does not impinge on the role of the finder of fact. As such it shares common traits with the other identification sciences of fingerprinting, ballistics, handwriting, and fiber, serum and substance identification.

Another criticism of the application of the Frye test as the standard for admission of voice identification evidence is that general acceptance by the scientific community is the proper condition for taking of judicial notice of scientific facts. McCormick states that general scientific acceptance is a proper condition for taking judicial notice of scientific facts, but not a criterion for the admissibility of scientific evidence.140

The court in Reed v. State 141 seemed to note this difference between the standard for the taking of judicial notice and that for admission of evidence such as voice identification. The court said that validity and reliability may be so broadly accepted in the scientific community that the court may take judicial notice of it. If it can not be judicially noticed then the reliability must be demonstrated before it can be admitted.142 The court then applied the Frye test, general acceptance by the scientific community, to determine reliability and thus, admissibility.

Scientific evidence has long been admitted before it was judicially noticed, as with the case of fingerprints. The admission of fingerprint identification evidence was first challenged in the case of People v. Jennings143 in 1911. The court in Jennings allowed the admission of fingerprint evidence saying "whatever tends to prove any material fact is relevant and competent".144 It was not until thirty-three years later that fingerprint evidence was first judicially noticed.145

The majority of courts which have decided the issue of admissibility in favor of allowing voice identification into the courtroom have used similar standards which permit the finder of fact to hear the evidence and determine the proper weight to be assigned to it. Their logic runs parallel to the Federal Rules of Evidence which state that all relevant evidence is admissible with the word "relevant" being defined as evidence tending to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.146 A qualified expert may testify to his opinion if such opinion will assist the trier of fact in better understanding the evidence.147

Many of the courts which have upheld the admission of voice identification evidence have done so because the trial court had set up a number of precautions to insure the evidence was viewed in its proper light. These precautions include allowing the jury to see the spectrograms of the voices in question, allowing the jury to hear the recordings from which the spectrograms were produced, the expert's qualifications and opinions as well as the reliability of the equipment and technique are subject to scrutiny by the other side, the availability of competent witnesses to expose limitations in the process, and instructions to the jury that they were free to assign whatever weight, if any, to the evidence they felt it deserved.

The United States Supreme Court in 1993 changed the long-standing law of admissibility of scientific expert evidence by rejecting the Frye test as inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Evidence in the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals148. The Court held that the Federal Rules of Evidence and not Frye were the standard for determining admissibility of expert scientific testimony. Frye's "general acceptance" test was superseded by the Federal Rules' adoption. Rule 702 is the appropriate standard to assess the admissibility of scientific evidence. The Court derived a reliability test from Rule 702.

In order to qualify a scientific knowledge, an inference or assertion must be derived by the scientific method. Proposed testimony must be supported by appropriate validation - i.e., good grounds, based on what is known. In short, the requirement that an expert's testimony pertain to scientific knowledge establishes a standard of evidentiary reliability149

The Daubert decision concerns statutory law and not constitutional law. The Court held that the Federal Rules, not Frye, govern admissibility.. The only Federal Circuit to reject spectrographic voice analysis has been the District of Columbia. Daubert may cause the District of Columbia to change its stance the next time such evidence is introduced.

 

[acaTerry]

Additionally TSA will not condone nor we will tolerate any type of harrassing action(s) taken by our employees againts any other person.

Unless it is TSA providing the harrassing (i.e. Crew Scheds).

 

[acaTerry]

I wish the FAA would take this kind of tough position on rest and duty regs. Many of them are not safe.

A-MEN!