![]() |
Originally Posted by PDRit
(Post 2670579)
It’s “too”......I rest my case...;-)
|
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
(Post 2670618)
AAnd your tooooo eazy ;)
|
Originally Posted by PDRit
(Post 2670621)
It’s “you’re”. At least we know you are a real Marine.
:eek: Ok.....you guys were right. It isn’t fun or even a challenge anymore. |
I'm following the cases, since the indictments are public record through the PACER database in the SFO US district court. What I am more interested in (call it a morbid fascination) is the mechanism the FAA found out about the discrepancies. Fishing expeditions by agencies are expressly forbidden by federal law. Release of medical records are protected under privacy act laws, and we don't sign a medical release when we apply for an FAA medical (other than the NDR check, which we expressly authorize). The statement simply means the FAA will cross-check databases if able, which doesn't authorize a release of protected data. My completely uneducated guess would be to agree with the sentiment earlier in the thread that the FAA somehow used a non-protected means to gain enough probable cause to issue a subpoena. Also, sort of related... Why does this always happen in NorCal? Didn't the last round of this type of prosecution take place in NorCal?
|
IRS is a conduit used in the past. States can access federal tax records. through disclosure laws IRC 6103 stuff). States in past looked at differences between federal and state taxes. Once any fraud is suspected, its potentially criminal and then subpoenas of other records (FAA medical forms, VA, Social Security? ) I suspect are accessed lawfully under criminal investigation. Prosecutions of similar FAA and VA cases years ago followed a nearly same path.
|
Originally Posted by conoblep
(Post 2672793)
I'm following the cases, since the indictments are public record through the PACER database in the SFO US district court. What I am more interested in (call it a morbid fascination) is the mechanism the FAA found out about the discrepancies. Fishing expeditions by agencies are expressly forbidden by federal law. Release of medical records are protected under privacy act laws, and we don't sign a medical release when we apply for an FAA medical (other than the NDR check, which we expressly authorize). The statement simply means the FAA will cross-check databases if able, which doesn't authorize a release of protected data. My completely uneducated guess would be to agree with the sentiment earlier in the thread that the FAA somehow used a non-protected means to gain enough probable cause to issue a subpoena. Also, sort of related... Why does this always happen in NorCal? Didn't the last round of this type of prosecution take place in NorCal?
This is how... https://www.leftseat.com/federal-avi...tration-faa-2/ |
So do you check the box for receiving disability benefits if you have a military disability rating?
I'm considering filing for a shoulder dislocation I got on active duty but since I wasn't hospitalized (I'm assuming that means you were admitted as inpatient) it doesn't fit in the other boxes. I don't want to have to jump through a bunch of hoops though for 10-20% |
Sure why not, I sincerely doubt the AME or the FAA gives a crap about a shoulder dislocation. I check it for my VA disabilities. Check a box if need be. No big deal.
|
Originally Posted by bh539
(Post 2673919)
So do you check the box for receiving disability benefits if you have a military disability rating?
I'm considering filing for a shoulder dislocation I got on active duty but since I wasn't hospitalized (I'm assuming that means you were admitted as inpatient) it doesn't fit in the other boxes. I don't want to have to jump through a bunch of hoops though for 10-20% |
Looks like the https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt-...qewPaQRC8QpGL/
Well that’s just a bit of a stretch.... Better get USERRA involved and the “how can you question my integrity” chant going. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:19 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands