Re: [Leica] Re: airport film check

["Roland Smith" <roland@dnai.com>]

Mr. Ting:

First, I was only refering to US procedures and I have witnessed in my
career in public accounting representing clients who have been abused by tax
and regulating authorities, the action by bureaucrats to exert a type of
administrative supremecy over citizens.

I have helped correct these for clients by my representation and in one case
obtaining the passage of a state law which allowed a hearing before property
siezure.

In my role in public accounting representing clients, I represented clients
without payment when there was a principle and missapplication of the law
with $1,000 or less at issue.   People have the right to fair application of
the rules nomatter how little is at issue.

Second, I am an elected officer of the municipal government, not a
bureaucrat, and, as such, under the charter of the city, I am responsible to
the people to protect them from government misapplication of rules.

Third, as travelers, we are customers of the flight providers and the
airports.  They are responsible to us.   The regulations are what they must
abide by.   When those regulations are found lacking, they may be changed by
the government not the security personnel who, in the case of the airport
security, are relatively uneducated.

Fourth, mistreatment of travelers property is not a small issue.   I have
had airport security personaly try to force entry into the back of an
expensive camera.   In another case, one individual tried to force a folding
camera to close.  Small matter?

Fifth, I have stopped the police from illegaly towing a citizen"s vehicle
under a blight ordinance where it was in no way applicable to the parked
vehicle.  Is this a small issue?

Sixth, in foreign countries, I do not challenge their rules.   It is there
country.

Seventh, you mention obnoxious Yankee.   That is totally irrelevant to the
issues I raised.  In my own country I am not an obnoxious Yankee for
standing up to keep government on track.

Do you think that when a city bureaucrat issues a fine to a citizen in
error, the citizen should reconcile that the matter is not important and pay
the fine?

I don't and I have been able to have the matter corrected where otherwise
the system would trample the citizen.

In my city I am applauded and thanked for exposing government wrongdoing.  I
have my office assigned to five ongoing fraud audits for city wrongdoing.
Do you still want to cast me as a bureaucrat or an obnoxious Yankee?

This does have to do with the constitution as a basis of our guarantee of
good government.   Your attempt to smear me in your closing statement
probably reveals more about you than it does of me.

Roland Smith
Oakland, California











- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry Ting" <henryting10@yahoo.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: airport film check


> I've travelled quite a bit to other countries and have
> since acquired a different perception of what is/is
> not human rights or rights of the individual. Yes,
> when it comes to government's abuse of authority
> towards its citizens and endanger our own existence
> and being, of course that is the basis of violating
> our constitutional rights. But you as a bureaucrat
> ought to know that in this small issue of the rights
> to have your film hand-inspected is a far-cry from a
> cop beating up someone in the inner city ghettos.
> Perhaps as Americans, we take things for granted. You
> see it all the time in foreign countries, especially
> in public where comments are often heard when
> Americans are around  : "Can't stand those loud and
> obnoxious Yanks". Now, don't try painting this issue
> with the good old US of A constitution. It has nothing
> to do with it. And if you think it does, then as a
> bureaucrat, I can say you abuse the system equally.
>
> --- Roland Smith <roland@dnai.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Ted:
> >
> > The reason to object to an incorrect application of
> > the law is to keep the
> > government that is to serve the people from turning
> > the tables and making
> > the people serve it.
> >
> > Here in the USA, we see countless instances of the
> > people being abused by
> > government  in a form that causes most the citizens
> > to cower like sheep and
> > say you can't beat city hall.
> >
> > As a CPA representing many clients before government
> > and now as an elected
> > official in my city of 400,000, I have beat city
> > hall on numerous occasions.
> > By that, I mean federal, state and local government.
> >
> > I have stood my ground for my clients and earned a
> > reputation that I will
> > win when the rules are on my side.
> >
> > Now, as the elected City Auditor of the City of
> > Oakland, I have had citizens
> > come to me with issues where the police department
> > or another agency of our
> > city have bullied them with an incorrect
> > interpretation of the law.
> >
> > I have kept the city from illegally towing vehicles
> > and illegally denying
> > licenses.
> >
> > Ted, right is worth fighting for.   I will not cower
> > as you suggest for film
> > inspection as long as the FAA regulations permit me
> > to have a hand
> > inspection.
> >
> > If I hear of unfair inspections at the Oakland
> > Airport, I will audit the
> > security administration and publish publicly a
> > report on the incorrect
> > process.
> >
> > I have earned a reputation with the citizens of
> > Oakland and was just
> > re-elected to a new four year term without
> > opposition.
> >
> > I urge everyone in my country to demand that the
> > inspectors not violate
> > regulations.   This country is based on the rule of
> > law and we must protect
> > that order by insisting the laws be followed.  The
> > government exists to
> > serve us.   Read John Locke.
> >
> > Roland Smith
> > Oakland, California
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ted Grant" <tedgrant@shaw.ca>
> > To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> > Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 9:12 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: airport film check
> >
> >
> > > Eric wrote:
> > > >>> Here in the US, it's the law that hand
> > inspections are allowed.  I see
> > > > nothing wrong in asserting that your rights be
> > respected.  The
> > inspectors
> > > > don't make the law.  They're not allowed to
> > change it, either.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.faa.gov/avr/AFS/FARS/far-108.txt
> > > >
> > > > > Sec. 108.17  Use of X-ray systems.
> > > >
> > > > > (e) No certificate holder may use an X-ray
> > system to inspect carry-on
> > > > > or checked articles unless a sign is posted in
> > a conspicuous place at
> > > > > the screening station and on the X-ray system
> > which notifies
> > > > > passengers that such items are being inspected
> > by an X-ray and advises
> > > > > them to remove all X-ray, scientific, and
> > high-speed film from
> > > > > carry-on and checked articles before
> > inspection. This sign shall also
> > > > > advise passengers that they may request that
> > an inspection be made of
> > > > > their photographic equipment and film packages
> > without exposure to an
> > > > > X-ray system. If the X-ray system exposes any
> > carry-on or checked
> > > > > articles to more than 1 milliroentgen during
> > the inspection, the
> > > > > certificate holder shall post a sign which
> > advises passengers to
> > > > > remove film of all kinds from their articles
> > before inspection. If
> > > > > requested by passengers, their photographic
> > equipment and film
> > > > > packages shall be inspected without exposure
> > to an X-ray system.
> > > >
> > > > This applies to all domestic flights within the
> > US.  If some 2-bit
> > > security
> > > > guy doesn't understand his job and his
> > obligations under the law, I
> > think
> > > > blaming the passenger is misplaced.<<<<<<<
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Eric,
> > >
> > > I don't have any argument with the law. But then
> > the law's of any land
> > > aren't always right. I see the stand off over a
> > few or many rolls of film
> > > nothing more than "pushing one's rights" so to
> > speak.
> > >
> > > When in fact it's a meaningless action when it's a
> > proven fact by many
> > > photographic industrial tests and countless
> > numbers of photographers who
> > > fire their film through without a blink, nothing
> > ever happens.
> > >
> > > What I see in the earlier post was just a "stand
> > off for no reason" other
> > > than..."it's the law therefore you will hand
> > inspect my film!" Pointless
> > > point!
> > > I see many of these security people having to put
> > up with countless
> > > a........holes every day, so why become one by
> > simply "pushing ones point
> > > because it's the law!"
> > >
> > > And given your country suffered from the 9/11
> > incident, I'd not push my
> > luck
> > > at any check in counter. Been through a few since
> > then and it was a good
> > > incident all the way......... even though
> > unnerving seeing your military
> > > guys hanging around with their weapons at the
> > ready. :-(
> > >
> > > ted
> > >
> > > Ted Grant Photography Limited
> > > www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe, see
> > http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, see
> http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
> http://mail.yahoo.com/
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>
>


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html