Sorrells quote:

"Suggested analogies from procedure in civil cases are not helpful. When
courts of law refuse to sustain alleged causes of action which grow out of
illegal schemes, the applicable law itself denies the right to recover".

This hardly suppports your argument.

Patty quote:

"it is entrapment to lure a person into the commission of a crime he did not
himself intend to commit." Patty was a professional license revocation based
upon an act which amounted to criminal conduct.

Entrapment cases talk about the government's "overbearing of the will" of
the defendant, to the point where the defendant did not have the mens rea to
commit the offense.

Remember you are asking an agency to act fairly and reasonably. This is the
same agency that treatens to shoot you down (in my neighborhood, anyway) if
you don't make contact with the controlling authority, but then
*steadfastly* refuses to provide timely and accurate information about the
frequencies you need to contact that authority.

But go ahead, make that argument and tell us how it works out for you.


"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
"LWG" wrote in message
...
Entrapment is a concept applicable only to criminal prosecutions. It
does not apply to enforcement actions.

Can you say why you believe entrapment only applies to criminal cases?
Here are a couple of reasons to believe the contrary:

1) In Sorrells v. US, the US Supreme Court wrote "The doctrine of
entrapment in criminal law is the analogue of the same rule applied in
civil proceedings".
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=287&invol=435

2) In Patty v Board of Medical Examiners, a California superior court
sustained a defendant's entrapment defense in an administrative
proceeding, writing "the majority of our sister states which have passed
on the legal question at issue recognize entrapment as a defense in
administrative disciplinary proceedings".
http://online.ceb.com/CalCases/C3/9C3d356.htm