"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Gary Drescher" wrote:
I don't see how the government could elect to "avoid" abiding by its
declared immunity policy. Immunity deals (even for serious crimes, which
this isn't) are crucial to our legal system, and as such are taken
seriously; the whole system would fall apart if immunity guarantees were
not
binding.

You don't see how the government could elect to not follow its own
rules? Seems to me that's most of what the government does. The FAA in
particular has a long history of either ignoring its own rules, or
conveniently redefining them to suit the moment.

I've read several cases that are popularly regarded as showing the FAA
ignoring its own rules, but on close examination, I don't think that's what
happened. In any case, abrogating an explicit promise of immunity would be
an *extreme* violation of due process. I am unaware of any precedent for
that, nor has anyone here cited one.

--Gary