Would a NASA form help?

George Patterson wrote:
Remember that you have not been charged with a crime. You have been
charged with violation of the FAA rules instituted for the safety of the
American public. The judicial branch does not have the final say.

The judicial branch has the final say in both civil and criminal
matters. You could appeal your case all the way up to the Supreme
Court, if you wanted to pay for the lawyers all the way up. (There's no
guarantee that any of the courts would hear your case, but even their
decision to hear your case or not is a form of judicial review.)

Here is a case where the U.S. Court of Appeals overrules the judgment of
the FAA and the NTSB. Especially note this paragraph:

---
The FAA and the NTSB argue that this Court does not have
jurisdiction to hear Reder's appeal. We disagree.

Judicial review of FAA or NTSB orders is contemplated by 49
U.S.C.  44709(f) (1994) of the Federal Aviation Act's Safety
Regulations. Section 44709(f) directs that orders of the NTSB or
the FAA be reviewed pursuant to 49 U.S.C.  46110 (1994).
---

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...ase&no=962438p

Charles.
-N8385U

"Charles O'Rourke" -net wrote in message
news:lUghe.13514$iU.12603@lakeread05...
The judicial branch has the final say in both civil and criminal matters.
You could appeal your case all the way up to the Supreme Court, if you
wanted to pay for the lawyers all the way up. (There's no guarantee that
any of the courts would hear your case, but even their decision to hear
your case or not is a form of judicial review.)

Yup.

What concerns me most about these threads is that so many pilots are willing
to believe--on the basis of mere rumors and urban legends--that we actually
live under a totalitarian system in which a minor administrative authority
routinely and openly operates without even nominal regard for due process,
and is so powerful as to be invulnerable to the judiciary! And these pilots
are willing to acquiesce to this (fortunately imaginary) totalitarianism
without mounting significant resistance. Their willingness serves as an
unwitting invitation to actually bring about such a state of affairs.

In other walks of life, of course, the Patriot Act, and US practices of
disappearance and torture, pose far more dire threats to due process and
other Constitutional and international human-rights guarantees. But at least
there *is* resistance being mounted--politically, and through litigation by
groups such as the ACLU. And there is no doubt that the judiciary has the
final say in these matters, although they have limited their intervention so
far.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
What concerns me most about these threads is that so many pilots are
willing
to believe--on the basis of mere rumors and urban legends--that we
actually
live under a totalitarian system in which a minor administrative authority
routinely and openly operates without even nominal regard for due process,
and is so powerful as to be invulnerable to the judiciary!

IMHO, part of the problem is that the "minor administrative authority" does
"routinely and openly operate without even nominal regard for due process".
That is, they act as though there is no judicial review, and are not
challenged on those actions nearly often enough. They may not actually be
"so powerful as to be invulnerable to the judiciary", but they sure act like
it on a regular basis.

Perhaps another part of the problem is that the judiciary so infrequently
chooses to review decisions made by the "minor administrative authority".
When an administration is permitted to interpret their own rules as they see
fit, and the judiciary makes the assumption that the actions of the
administration are entirely appropriate for their charter to ensure aviation
safety, without regard for their charter to promote aviation, it's easy to
see how some folks might get the wrong idea.

Pete

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:ea5he.93$n95.6@trndny08...
Gary Drescher wrote:

Until there's a coup d'etat, the FAA's actions are subject to judicial
review.

And if the FAA doesn't like the results of that review, they take it to
the NTSB, who will almost always overrule the judge.

Overrule the judge? Are you claiming that the NTSB is exempt from
oversight
by the judiciary?

Certainly, where you been?


--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:ea5he.93$n95.6@trndny08...

Gary Drescher wrote:

Until there's a coup d'etat, the FAA's actions are subject to judicial
review.

And if the FAA doesn't like the results of that review, they take it to
the NTSB, who will almost always overrule the judge.


Overrule the judge? Are you claiming that the NTSB is exempt from oversight
by the judiciary?

He's confusing the ALJ with the real judiciary.