[FedCom] "On Scene" Barnes MAP/ANGB

Fri, 26 Apr 2002 11:09:39 -0400

Of course, I jest.  Certainly no law-enforcement/security personnel or
government entity would lie or abuse authority.  What was I thinking!!!????

ed <[email protected]> on 04/26/2002 10:36:11 AM

Please respond to [email protected]

To:   [email protected]
cc:    (bcc: Arthur-Bryan Phelps/Allentown/Field/OVR)
Subject:  RE: [FedCom] "On Scene" Barnes MAP/ANGB

what?  law-enforcement/security personnel lying to the public and abusing
their authority to intimidate people?  and then nobody at a federal agency
in charge of public safety being accountable?  surely you jest!

At 06:59 AM 4/26/02 -0400, you wrote:
>The possibility exists that the security personnel at the referenced
>airport just don't like scanner enthusiasts and hassled the individuals
and
>gave the BS explanation about an FAA mandate.  I called the FAA yesterday
>and was bumped from person to person -- none of whom could or would
confirm
>or deny the alleged regulation.  I was then directed to the new
>Transportation Security Administration where once again I was bumped from
>person to person, department to department.  I finally spoke with a staff
>attorney who requested that I submit my inquiry in writing.  So I sent him
>both a FAX and e-mail.  I wonder if I receive a response or a visit from
>the FBI.
>Regarding the NTSB, if they are now encrypted too what is left for us to
>monitor?
>
>
>
>
>"Rankin, Robert L" <[email protected]> on 04/25/2002 05:37:50 PM
>
>To:   Arthur-Bryan Phelps/Allentown/Field/OVR
>cc:
>Subject:  RE: [FedCom] "On Scene" Barnes MAP/ANGB
>
>
>
>
>Yeah, personally I tend to think that this is all baloney.  You have to
>consider who you're dealing with in "airport security".  I suppose some of
>them may be trained and conscientious police officers, but I'd bet a chunk
>of my daily salary that lots of them, especially nowadays, are high school
>dropouts who simply like to boss people around.  And to that end, if
>someone
>challenges them, they make up the rules as they go along.  They like to
>think of themselves in some sort of James Bond role when, in reality, they
>oughta be flipping burgers.
>
>BTW, I never got any takers on the PL tone for NTSB, although some time
ago
>I recall someone saying they had gone encrypted.  Nevertheless, I keep
>those
>3 channels active in my scanners in case something interesting pops up.
>
>Bob, w0nxn
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Sent: 4/25/02 9:33 AM
>Subject: RE: [FedCom] "On Scene" Barnes MAP/ANGB
>
>Mr. Cobb appears to have vanished.  Does this whole thing sound strange
>to
>anyone else or is it just me?  I mean we are given an alleged
>law/mandate
>(whatever) that conveniently can't be verified under the guise of
>Terrorism/Terrorist Controls (a term that I never heard used before). If
>anyone lives near the airport he referenced, please call their
>security/police unit to get some information on this "new FAA mandate."
>I
>think we all have to work together until this is either confirmed or can
>be
>dispelled as misinformation.
>
>
>
>
>[email protected] on 04/25/2002 10:35:09 AM
>
>Please respond to [email protected]
>
>To:   [email protected]
>cc:    (bcc: Arthur-Bryan Phelps/Allentown/Field/OVR)
>Subject:  RE: [FedCom] "On Scene" Barnes MAP/ANGB
>
>
>
>
>good deal maybe we can find out a secondary confirmation or find out if
>someone got thier wires crossed
>don
>
>
>
>http://www.angelfire.com/ms2/paswx/  MY WEATHER PAGE updated every 20
>minutes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:     "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>on
>behalf of "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>Sent:     Thu, 25 Apr 2002 09:25:22 -0400
>To:  "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>Subject:  RE: [FedCom] "On Scene" Barnes MAP/ANGB
>
>Thanks, Don.  Please keep me and the others posted.  I plan to call the
>FAA
>today.
>
>
>
>
>[email protected] on 04/25/2002 09:40:29 AM
>
>Please respond to [email protected]
>
>To:   [email protected]
>cc:    (bcc: Arthur-Bryan Phelps/Allentown/Field/OVR)
>Subject:  RE: [FedCom] "On Scene" Barnes MAP/ANGB
>
>
>
>
>
>not other than the initial information
>no secondary confirmation
>I am awaiting response from my congressional critters(sent WED)
>don
>
>
>http://www.angelfire.com/ms2/paswx/  MY WEATHER PAGE updated every 20
>minutes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:     "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>on
>behalf of "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>Sent:     Thu, 25 Apr 2002 08:44:31 -0400
>To:  "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>Subject:  RE: [FedCom] "On Scene" Barnes MAP/ANGB
>
>Was anyone able to confirm this "New FAA Mandate" as fact?  I'm
>confused.
>Paul said he called the FAA and they confirmed it.  Has anyone else
>called
>the FAA?  Also, if the FAA truly confirmed the restriction of scanner,
>receiver use t controlled airports, why would Paul then call his
>Congressman?  Again, has anyone confirmed or nullified the veracity of
>this
>secret law?
>
>
>
>
>"Thomas J. Dalrymple" <[email protected]> on 04/23/2002 07:58:10 PM
>
>Please respond to [email protected]
>
>To:   [email protected]
>cc:    (bcc: Arthur-Bryan Phelps/Allentown/Field/OVR)
>Subject:  RE: [FedCom] "On Scene" Barnes MAP/ANGB
>
>
>
>
>Silly question......  has anyone (other than the original poster) called
>their
>congressman or senator to verify the existence of this law?  Larry Van
>Horn, do
>you have any info?  Paul Cobb, you were the original poster; who's your
>congressman and what's the name of the person who quoted this law to
>you?
>
>Tom
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected]
>On Behalf Of ed
>Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 6:59 PM
>Subject: Re: [FedCom] "On Scene" Barnes MAP/ANGB
>
>
>ken,  you may be right that nobody on the list is up for a legal
>challenge,
>especially if it involves being arrested.  unfortunately, our legal
>system
>requires people to challenge egregious laws in order for them to be
>struck
>down, and you must show you've been harmed by a law in order to have a
>case.  the history of jurisprudence is full of examples of this.
>
>understandably, few people on this list want to deal with this and pay
>money it requires to do this.  as for how this stupid policy became law,
>it's probably safe to say that public input was neither solicited nor
>seriously considered.  american democracy can work, but only if people
>actively participate (and this means a lot more than just voting.)
>
>fear and intimidation tactics are the usual methods used to enact and
>keep
>egregious laws like this in force.  if we do nothing about it, then we
>get
>the laws and law enforcement that we deserve.  the frustrating part
>about
>this particular situation is that nobody can even prepare to challenge a
>law if their own elected representative won't let them read it because
>it's
>supposedly "secret" (this is for your own good, after all.)
>
>if people on this list believe this will be the last law enacted that
>criminalizes monitoring the public airwaves, then they're going to be
>sadly
>mistaken.  let's look into challenging this--a good start would be to
>obtain the text of the specific law that supposedly criminalizes
>monitoring
>at an airport.  contrary to popular belief, we do have some federal laws
>that you're not allowed to read.  challenging the secrecy of this
>particular law may not require being charged with violating
>it.  challenging the law itself is another story.
>
>anyone want to dig deeper on this?
>
>-ed
>
>_______________________________________________
>FedCom mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fedcom
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>FedCom mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fedcom
>_______________________________________________
>FedCom mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fedcom
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>FedCom mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fedcom
>_______________________________________________
>FedCom mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fedcom
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>FedCom mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fedcom
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>FedCom mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fedcom

_______________________________________________
FedCom mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fedcom