Administrative law is probably the better term.
This has been repeatedly linked to:
Its the Code of Federal Regulations.** It’s the Law. ** You have been shown this time after time.
Try not paying your federal Income taxes and telling them “I was only breaking Federal Regulations, not the Law!”. Yes, Federal regs are the Law.
Yes.
You would be using a very narrow definition of illegal if it wasn’t.
Nobody said they couldn’t have asked. The issue is what they did when they didn’t like the answer.
Show me one single person in this thread who has made such a claim.
If something is forbidden by law, then it is illegal.
Regulations are a type of law, specifically administrative law. Violating administrative law can result in penalties, just like violating statutory law can result in penalties.
But quibbling over the scope of the term “illegal” is a red herring.
Then I don’t get your point. Legally they were required to give him a copy of the CoC hilighting their right to deny boarding involuntarily. They never did that thus they broke the law. 14 CFR 250.2 iirc
If someone punches you in the face, did they break the law?
If they did, when do you know that? When your nose is broken? When you call the police? When you file charges? When they are arrested?
If you decide not to call the police and press charges, does that mean that they did not break the law?
Same here, if Dr. Doa chose to press intimidation/extortion charges against the flight crew, I think he would have a good case. I don’t necessarily think that he should, as they were breaking the law out of ignorance, but since when is ignorance an affirmative excuse for law breaking?
You think it would be weird to be arrested for not just ignoring, but directly over riding an officer’s orders, while also violently destroying property of which you have no right to destroy, all because you were attempting to violate a contract?
Whether you spend more than a night in jail is up to your customer, on whether or not he decides to press charges for your threats and violence directed at him, and your financial future is riding on whether or not he decides to take you to court and seek punitive damages for your behavior.
You have said that, but you have not made any case whatsoever for your position, but have merely stated your position. The closest to an argument you have made is that if you aren’t arrested for it, then you didn’t break the law, which is a terrible standard to use, as it is extremely untrue.
Here you go:
Next:
You, like almost everyone else, recall incorrectly. 250.2 deals with denying boarding, something everyone agrees wasn’t the case.
Yes, and I can point to the EXACT law that was broken. Not link to every single law and say “It’s in there somewhere”
Why wouldn’t I have the right to flatten the tires of my own vehicle? That seems weird.
My position has been from the very beginning - “You have said that their actions were illegal. Please point out the exact law that was broken when the flight crew told the man to get off the plane”
Yes, and it deals with reasons they can deny boarding. The reason that they denied this guy boarding was not covered. Which is the entire point.
Yes, and I pointed to the exact law that they broke. I dunno if you were drunk and missed it, but I have pointed it out to you at least twice now.
If you disagree, fine, but making the claim that it hasn’t been pointed out is not in line with the actual facts in this thread.
I explained that twice now. It’s not all that weird if you had any idea how contracts work. Once you have signed the contract and given the keys, it is the renter’s property. You have alienated many of your rights to that property. It would be no different at that time if you slashed the tires of the car that you had rented, or just slashed the tires on my car. You do not have the right to do it, and so performing destructive and violent actions toward another person is in fact against the law.
I take it that you did not in fact read the post, where I linked to the exact law that they broke when they performed intimidation and extortion to attempt to force him to comply with the demands that they have no right to give?
Yes, and they dont have the right to remove a passenger otherwise, barring a dangerous or disruptive passenger.
Thank you for your answer. Now, I’d like to avoid be arrested, but I’d like to apply for a grant from the Student Support Services Program. I believe the application procedure is in 34 CFR 646.10. Now one part of that says:
**(a) An eligible applicant may submit more than one application as long as each application describes a project that serves a different campus or a designated different population. **
Now, according to you, if I submit more than one application that DOESN’T describe a project that servers a different campus or a designated different population, I have just broken the law, and can be arrested? After all, I didn’t follow the “Federal Regulations” therefore my actions are illegal, right?
But I thought they DIDN’T deny boarding, since he was, you know, already boarded?
If you mean your extortion law, then I simply disagree with you.
I don’t believe this to be the case, nor do I think the comparisons between something I own and something I do NOT own are valid.
I find your argument lacking and disagree that it would fall under “extortion”
So in your view, removing a passenger is the same as denying boarding?
You’ve broken the law, by committing fraud, and may be sanctioned by the body that governs the applications. It’s probably a very low degree misdemeanor with a small fine, maybe a suspended sentence, which almost certainly would be vacated if you could show that you did so through error rather than intent.
If you actually got approved and took the money for both, then got found out, the penalties would likely be more severe for your fraudulent submissions. If it is over a couple grand, you are likely looking at a felony.
I don’t agree this is the case. Similarly, with this Regulation:
“Except as provided in § 19.2 of this subchapter for Executive orders and proclamations, each agency submitting a document to be filed and published in the Federal Register shall send an original and two duplicate originals or certified copies”
I better warn everyone at my agency that if they only send ONE duplicate original, they could be arrested for fraud! :rolleyes:
No. But since denying boarding was not applicable here (and that is what United had claimed they removed Dao under) they had no right at all to remove him.
In other words, United stated they had overbooked and they removed Dao under those regs. They were not overbooked, the failed to follow the regs for denying boardings and those regs do not seem to allow a boarded passenger to be removed.
Yes, thereby compounding their error. This does not help their case at all, nor yours, for that matter.
The point is they can only remove someone from the plane under certain circumstances, and those circumstances were not met.
Well, that’s your right, but as you have given no actual argument for your disagreement, then you cannot claim that I am wrong to make the claim.
I made my case as to why their actions could well be considered intimidation/extortion under illinois law. If you want to make an opposing case, go for it, otherwise, your opinion and disagreement means nothing here.
Well, here I simply disagree with you.
Not true, it’s not that simple. If you knew anything at all about how contracts work, you would not make this claim. You would know that once you have a signed contract with another party, then you lose some of your rights to your property. Depriving the rightful user of the property that you have legally abrogated your own rights to in a violent and intimidating fashion is going to break multiple laws. If you did this in front of the cop who just told you that the contract that you just made does not give you the right to reposes the car at this time, I guarantee you will get handcuffed and spend a night in jail at the very least. If your customer decided to press charges, you may be seeing the inside of a cell a bit more than you would like.
Can you say why, or do you just “simply disagree”?
Most likely, they would be contacted and asked to provide another copy.
If, however, you intentionally sent an original that did not match the certified copies, that would be fraud.
No, the point is, several of you keep pointing to regulations that cover denying boarding and somehow think they apply to this situation, which they don’t. But you keep pointing them out as though they do. That’s the point.
Yes, and I’d like to see the criminal code and what penalties there are for flattening the tires of my own car.
I disagree because I don’t think telling a person that you will call the police unless they leave is “extortion”