Never, ever, ask the chief counsel a question!

[JimNtexas]

It's always fun to read the FARs to figure out how everyone in an A380 can log PIC time. Or is it every one but the last guy in the last row by the lav?

Is there ever a situation where the Part-1 PIC can't log PIC time under Part 61? Inquiring minds with too much time on their hands want to know?

There are certainly odd corners of the LSA regulations in to which we can explore the edges of the LSA design envelopes. And we can have endless fun figuring out what conditions constitute 'known icing'. The list of fun with regs goes on and on.

These are all good questions and should be discussed by pilots.

There is one rule you really don't want to break:

Whatever you do DON'T WRITE THE FAA CHIEF COUNSEL A LETTER ASKING A QUESTION IF YOU, AND I, AND EVERY PILOT IN AMERICA CAN'T STAND THE ANSWER.

Chief counsel letters are not the stone tablets from God that some folks think they are. When you write the chief counsel realize that your letter will really be answered by a 26 year old recent law school graduate who's grades couldn't get her in to a big firm. She's never been anywhere on a airport other than the passenger terminal and the big aluminum tube.

She has every incentive to interpret the actual law in the most restrictive way imaginable.

Nobody in the government has ever been demoted for trying to increase the power of the government.

When she gives you the answer you didn't want to hear, now you have three choices:

1) Bend over, grab you ankles, and say 'please mistress may I have another'.

2) Hire your own lawyer to write the interpretation you wanted. Go to a person called a 'judge', who's is really the only person in the government with the actual authority to decide what the words actually mean. The judge isn't there to answer hypothetical questions, you'll first have to show how the FAA's incorrect reading of the law has injured you personally in some way. If you can do that, then you may ask his honor the question. His answer actually means something.

3) Disregard the letter for the obvious piece of crap that some of them are and get on with your life. Remember, the Chief Counsel letter's is one GS-12's opinion with no actual force of law at all behind it.

Just realize that if the FAA ever takes official notice of some action of yours related to the question you foolishly asked the FAA then you'll need to be ready hire a lawyer to write his/your version of the law means, and then take your lawyer's letter and their lawyer's letter to a judge, who will decide who was really correct. Real judges are the only people in our system who really have the authority to say what the words of the law mean.

From what I can see the FAA/NTSB administrative law judge system is run by graduates of the Pyongyang School of Law. So you will face an expensive route to get to a real judge if your interpretation differs from that of the FAA's lawyer.

I understand the recent pilot bill of rights may have fixed some of the more outrageous practices of the NTSB administrative law system. I hope so.

In the meantime,

Whatever you do DON'T WRITE THE FAA CHIEF COUNSEL A LETTER ASKING A QUESTION IF YOU, AND I, AND EVERY PILOT IN AMERICA CAN'T STAND THE ANSWER.

Asking the FAA legal staff a written question to which you/I/we can't stand the answer is paying Russian Roulette with 4 rounds in the chamber!

I'm not a lawyer, but I am an Enrolled Agent so I am familiar with how we get official answers to questions about tax law. These same kinds of questions come up in tax law all the time, what with the FARs being a model of simplicity and clarity compared to the tax code.

One FAR I'd like to see is for the FAA to borrow from the IRS is the concept of a 'private letter ruling'. If a person or entity feels strongly that their lawyer's interpretation of tax law is correct then they pay a fee and get to ask their question.

They get an answer from the senior IRS legal staff. This answer will be binding on whatever revenue officer is directly concerned with the taxpayer's case. If it is the answer the questioner wanted then everyone's happy, except maybe the revenue officer who had a different interpretation of the tax code.

If the IRS commissioner doesn't like the PLR then he can start a real legal process to get it overturned, or if he likes the PLR it can made into real precedent. Either way, other parties will have the chance to present their interpretations to a judge if they care to before the PLR is applied to tax payers other than the questioner.

If the private letter ruling is not the answer the questioner wanted then their next stop is Tax Court, where they only people who really can say with authority what the words of the law mean will look at the letters from both sets of lawyers and tell them what the correct answer is.

The nice thing is that a 'private letter ruling' is not precedent. They don't establish a rule for anyone but the entity that asked the question.

If the FAA had private letter rulings then that south Florida flight school that fills a 500 seat A380 with Asian and European flight students and 200 hour CFI's and wants to let everyone on the airplane log PIC could ask for a private letter ruling on their Part 61 interpretation without muddying the waters for every pilot in America.

And the question would be important enough to the asker to justify paying a fee for the answer.

Tax Court is very user friendly, in particular it is very friendly to the taxpayer with no lawyer. It is the only court I know of in which non-law school graduates can represent clients.

The tax code itself is a cosmic joke, but the Tax Court system is a model of user-friendliness. I wish we had a aviation court system that was similarly configured.

 

[taters]

Amen, no need to set needless precedent.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

It's always fun to read the FARs to figure out how everyone in an A380 can log PIC time. Or is it every one but the last guy in the last row by the lav?

LOL Got a burr under your saddle, Jim?

Is there ever a situation where the Part-1 PIC can't log PIC time under Part 61? Inquiring minds with too much time on their hands want to know?

Sure. Just because you are the Part 1 PIC does not necessarily mean you can log it. Acting and logging are totally separate issues according to the FAR's. That dead horse has been beaten probably more than any other subject on this board.

Whatever you do DON'T WRITE THE FAA CHIEF COUNSEL A LETTER ASKING A QUESTION IF YOU, AND I, AND EVERY PILOT IN AMERICA CAN'T STAND THE ANSWER.

Can't argue with that.

Chief counsel letters are not the stone tablets from God that some folks think they are. When you write the chief counsel realize that your letter will really be answered by a 26 year old recent law school graduate who's grades couldn't get her in to a big firm. She's never been anywhere on a airport other than the passenger terminal and the big aluminum tube.

Got a source for that opinion?

2) Hire your own lawyer to write the interpretation you wanted. Go to a person called a 'judge', who's is really the only person in the government with the actual authority to decide what the words actually mean. The judge isn't there to answer hypothetical questions, you'll first have to show how the FAA's incorrect reading of the law has injured you personally in some way. If you can do that, then you may ask his honor the question. His answer actually means something.

Have you ever seen a case where that has occurred?

3) Disregard the letter for the obvious piece of crap that some of them are and get on with your life. Remember, the Chief Counsel letter's is one GS-12's opinion with no actual force of law at all behind it.

As Ron would say, "Do so at your own peril."

Asking the FAA legal staff a written question to which you/I/we can't stand the answer is paying Russian Roulette with 4 rounds in the chamber!

Then don't ask the question.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Is there ever a situation where the Part-1 PIC can't log PIC time under Part 61?

When some other pilot is driving?


Other than that. Why poke a hornets nest with a stick if you don't have to...

 

[poadeleted20]

Those Chief Counsel opinions may have been written by some young attorney in AGC-200, but they have the Assistant Chief Counsel's signature and "by direction" authority of the Chief Counsel. By law and Federal court precedent, those interpretations have the force of law unless and until the US Court of Appeals says otherwise, and that doesn't happen often. Violating them is more like playing Russian Roulette with a clip-fed weapon -- your chance of beating them in court is about the same as having a misfire, and even post-PBOR, that's a really low-probability event.

 

[JimNtexas]

Those Chief Counsel opinions may have been written by some young attorney in AGC-200, but they have the Assistant Chief Counsel's signature and "by direction" authority of the Chief Counsel. By law and Federal court precedent, those interpretations have the force of law ....

'.

I don't think you are correct about that. Congress can't delegate the power to write laws to the executive branch.

The thing that has the force of law is called 'The U.S. Code'. The FAA can't add or subtract from that.

What the FAA letter tells you is what the FAA lawyer might argue to the judge if you are accused of violating the U.S. Code. You will have an equal right to present your own interpretation of the law to the judge, and the judge may well agree with you.

It's good to familiarize with the Chief Counsel letters and to heed them unless you have a good faith belief that the FAA is acting contrary to law, and are will to take the question to court if you have to.

In the tax world we just had an example of the IRS trying to write its own laws. The IRS decided that it had the authority to regulate anyone who prepared taxes for money. They set up a licensing scheme, let testing contracts to Prometrics, and tried to force everyone in the tax preparation business to jump through a bunch of hoops their bureaucrats held up.

The IRS was slammed hard by the Federal Courts. They were told in no uncertain terms that there was nothing in the U.S. Code that authorized their scheme, and were ordered to cease their scheme at once. They appealed, and lost with one sentence decision upholding the cease and desist order.

Oh, and while we're asking for cites, someone please cite one case where a FAR-1 PIC was violated for logging PIC time.

 

[comanchepilot]

Looks to me the OP here has never actually with the IRS in an adversarial capacity when some flunky makes a mistake and no one wants to correct it. Never ask a question you don't know the newer to, which you first get from a local fsdo . . .

 

[BillTIZ]

So after all of that, what was the question? and what was the answer you did not like?

 

[JimNtexas]

So after all of that, what was the question? and what was the answer you did not like?

The point of the original post is to discourage pilots from the very bad practice of asking for written opinions from the FAA unless they really, really, really have no other recourse.

I don't have a specific question in mind, but just I after I posted this someone in a thread about filing '/U' suggested that someone ought to ask the FAA Chief Counsel for an opinion on the 'legal' way to file a flight plan. That is exactly the kind of silliness I want to discourage.

 

[BillTIZ]

The point of the original post is to discourage pilots from the very bad practice of asking for written opinions from the FAA unless they really, really, really have no other recourse.

I don't have a specific question in mind, but just I after I posted this someone in a thread about filing '/U' suggested that someone ought to ask the FAA Chief Counsel for an opinion on the 'legal' way to file a flight plan. That is exactly the kind of silliness I want to discourage.

Ah ha

 

[bbchien]

Yeah. there is a certain Mr. Robert Miller, CFI, who caused us wintertime operators about 3 years of pain.

 

[rottydaddy]

The point of the original post is to discourage pilots from the very bad practice of asking for written opinions from the FAA unless they really, really, really have no other recourse.

I don't have a specific question in mind, but just I after I posted this someone in a thread about filing '/U' suggested that someone ought to ask the FAA Chief Counsel for an opinion on the 'legal' way to file a flight plan. That is exactly the kind of silliness I want to discourage.

They're kinda like bees: often a nuisance, but generally, "if you don't bother them, they won't bother you". :wink2:

 

[Clark1961]

Yeah. there is a certain Mr. Robert Miller, CFI, who caused us wintertime operators about 3 years of pain.

Did the question cause the pain or the answer?

 

[RotorAndWing]

The point of the original post is to discourage pilots from the very bad practice of asking for written opinions from the FAA unless they really, really, really have no other recourse.

I don't have a specific question in mind, but just I after I posted this someone in a thread about filing '/U' suggested that someone ought to ask the FAA Chief Counsel for an opinion on the 'legal' way to file a flight plan. That is exactly the kind of silliness I want to discourage.

"Thus quoth the maven"

 

[JGoodish]

'.

I don't think you are correct about that. Congress can't delegate the power to write laws to the executive branch.

It's interesting that you're discouraging folks from writing to request a Chief Counsel interpretation, but then also claim that those interpretations don't really have any teeth. If the latter was the case, why would the former matter?

The reality is that Congress has afforded executive branch agencies broad authority to regulate and/or to interpret regulations relevant to their agencies. While I think that this practice is unwise, it is reality, and it is therefore highly unlikely that you would prevail against a letter of interpretation written by a presumed 26 year old law school flunky employed at such an agency. Even if you were to win against a letter of interpretation, such a win would not come without a cost.

With that being said, your advice of caution on when and to whom you ask questions certainly has merit.


JKG

 

[JimNtexas]

"those interpretations don't really have any teeth. If the latter was the case, why would the former matter?"

You'll never ever be violated because you violated something that Suzi from Vasser wrote in a letter and put on her bookshelf at HQ FAA. You'll be violated for violating an actual paragraph of the U.S. Code.

While the bookshelf at HQ FAA isn't law, it does affect the way pilots act in the real world. That's why I said you should heed the ones you know about unless you have a good reason not to, and are willing to go to court over it. (Not being laws, there's not really an easy way to find out which letters may or may not reflect the opinions of the actual current FAA management).

Unlike IRS private letter rulings, these FAA letters form a kind of regulatory miasma that almost always clouds the actual meaning of the FARs and confuses everyone involved, including the working FAA employees. In some cases real harm has been done to operators by these backdoor non-regs.

Don't ask the question if you can't stand the answer!!!!

 

[MAKG1]

Umm, the CFR isn't the USC either. So, are you claiming that all of 14 CFR is invalid because Congress can't delegate lawmaking, despite 49 USC 106?

 

[Tommy3]

Jim's bits of "advice" strike me as almost uniformly terrible.

First I deal with a factual error. It is not the case that young government attorneys are graduates "who's [sic] grades couldn't get her in to a big firm". Many lawyers seek the intellectual challenge of government work or enjoy the public interest side of things; they thus eschew the high pay but generally dull work of Big Law. A former girlfriend of mine took a very low paying job as a DA because that meant she'd be in court trying important cases from almost day one. I have other friends who work for white shoe firms and pull down 500k a year, but they are still doing document review and are, after years of experience, glorified copy editors. For people who aren't motivated by money there's a lot to be said for government work. Some entry attorney jobs in DOJ, for example, are considered highly elite.

Not being a lawyer myself I cannot comment on Jim's claim that regulations do not have the force of law, except to say that it strikes me, prima facie, as false. I advise no one to follow his example unless they consult first with someone knowledgeable. Evidence that he may not be the most reliable source can be found in hyperbolic statements like "FAA/NTSB administrative law judge system is run by graduates of the Pyongyang School of Law", which tell me that this is a man who likely has not traveled much, and certainly not to the ****tier parts of the world. We have it good in many ways.

I guess my take on our relationship with the FAA is that, with us as pilots and them as the regulators, there is naturally a friction, and that friction is a good thing. To use an apropos example, there is huge, obvious friction among judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, each having very different interests. But in the end the adversarial system functions well and redounds to our benefit. At the end of the day we are all on the same team--in pursuit of safe aviation--and we should respect that each has a role to play.

I do not want to be rude, but when I read these occasional bouts of anti-government apoplexy, I want their authors to take a moment to consider that, perhaps, their views are not the correct ones. There are highly experienced, highly intelligent people who do not agree with you.

 

[denverpilot]

I've often had rediculous thoughts that going completely the opposite direction might be more fun...

Find every dang inconsistency in the FARs and request the Chief Counsel's opinion on ALL of them, separately and formally. Maybe even have them sent in, each one by a different individual.

Flood the place with questions, wait for all the really really REALLY dumb answers to hit, which would create a HUGE uproar about the power the Chief has to change the meaning or intent of law the Chief didn't write...

Watch alphabet soup organizations actually get riled up for once... maybe even see some limitations and/or checks-and-balances put on the "legislate from a desk" problem after creating a nightmare for thousands for a short while.

Mostly 'cause it's fun to watch government hang itself...

 

[whwmsj6]

It's easier (and usually cheaper when lawyers are involved) to ask forgiveness than to ask permission....

 

[JeffDG]

Umm, the CFR isn't the USC either. So, are you claiming that all of 14 CFR is invalid because Congress can't delegate lawmaking, despite 49 USC 106?

Bingo.

The 14 CFR is written and adopted entirely by the FAA. The courts have been very deferential in interpretations of rules promulgated by an agency, on the presumption of "They wrote it, so they must know what it means."

Absent a finding that an interpretation was "arbitrary or capricious", the courts will not disturb an agency interpretation of the CFRs. The FAA even has a successful history of ex post facto interpretations, made the day before the hearing before the ALJ, that the courts ruled must be respected.

Ignorance of the law is no defense before the bar of justice. So the question is: If the regulation is unclear, is it better to not know and be violated for it, or ask a question and get clarification without violation?

 

[Jaybird180]

I learned 2 new words "apoplexy" and "miasma". I go use my new words now...

(exit, stage right)

 

[midlifeflyer]

"those interpretations don't really have any teeth. If the latter was the case, why would the former matter?"

You'll never ever be violated because you violated something that Suzi from Vasser wrote in a letter and put on her bookshelf at HQ FAA. You'll be violated for violating an actual paragraph of the U.S. Code.

Really? So you can't be violated for violating an ATC instruction under 14 C.F.R. §91.123 because following ATC instructions is not a requirement in the US Code? There's a whole bunch of pilots who would be surprised to hear that.

I think your understanding of Federal administrative law may be a bit limited or perhaps you're just being hypertechnical.

The US Code will delegate to federal agencies like the FAA the authority to promulgate regulations that have the force of law, subject to very limited challenges such as the agency exceeding the limit of its statutory authority, the regulation being arbitrary and unreasonable, procedural defects in the regulation's promulgation, or even unconstitutionality. With respect to some of these, they are the same challenges that can be made to statutes themselves.

In turn, agencies will interpret their own regulations. The methods vary from "Official Commentary" used by a number of federal agencies dealing with financial institutions to, yes, the FAA Chief Counsel opinions we refer to from time to time. While these technically do not have the "force of law," under long-standing federal precedent and, sometimes, specific US Code authority, they are given significant deference. In the aviation arena, until the Pilot's Bill of Rights, the deference given by the NTSB in reviewing FAA enforcement actions was required.

So, when an airman is violated, while 49 U.S.C. §44709 will indeed be referred to for the underlying authority, the violation will be of a a regulation in 14 C.F.R., and the conduct that constitutes the violation may well be tested under Suzi from Vasser's* interpretation formalized as a published Chief Counsel opinion.


(*assuming Suzy went to law school after Vassar since, AFAIK, the letters are drafted by attorneys in the Chief Counsel's office)

 

[midlifeflyer]

I've often had rediculous thoughts that going completely the opposite direction might be more fun...

Find every dang inconsistency in the FARs and request the Chief Counsel's opinion on ALL of them, separately and formally. Maybe even have them sent in, each one by a different individual.

Wouldn't work. There's no requirement that the Chief Counsel's office answer those letters. And they don't.

 

[weilke]

While I dont agree with the 'never ever' part, I would suggest that people think a bit more before they send of these letters and limit them to actual questions of law rather than just trying to get someone to sign off on operational issues. The answers will be written by a lawyer, not a pilot.

There is this CFI who needs a CC opinion to decide whether the FARs specify whether he has to use his right or left hand to blow his nose. One of his lists of inane questions to the CC left us with the decision that you can't circle to the left of the airport at an uncontrolled field. Mangiamele was another question that didn't need asking and caused a lot of grief.

 

[Ateaist]

'I don't think you are correct about that. Congress can't delegate the power to write laws to the executive branch.

The thing that has the force of law is called 'The U.S. Code'. The FAA can't add or subtract from that.

Well, this is not entirely true. First of all, an agency of the executive branch can legislate if Congress explicity delegates the legislative authority to that agency (or to a State or even in a few cases to private entities). But that's not what we're talking about here. Congress typically grants each implementing agency broad rule-making authority within the legislative framework. Those rules are promulgated in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act (5 USC section 500 et seq.) The rules promulgated by the FAA are set forth in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (and those by the IRS, in Title 26). These administrative rules have the force of law, and the implementing agency is responsible also for their interpretation.

 

[denverpilot]

Wouldn't work. There's no requirement that the Chief Counsel's office answer those letters. And they don't.

Yeah, I know. We pay them to get randomly screwed when they feel like it. Quite a system.

 

[Palmpilot]

Congress can't delegate the power to write laws to the executive branch.

On the contrary, as explained in the following article, Congress can and has delegated "quasi-legislative" authority to Executive Branch agencies, and the Supreme Court has backed them up:

http://pols733.editme.com/Lesson3

 

[ClimbnSink]

It's easier (and usually cheaper when lawyers are involved) to ask forgiveness than to ask permission....

Words to live by. Now I'm going to log me some 747 time while sitting in my chair playing solitaire.

 

[poadeleted20]

It's easier (and usually cheaper when lawyers are involved) to ask forgiveness than to ask permission....

Not where the FAA is concerned. Even post-PBOR, they can still advance their interpretation of the regulation for the first time at your enforcement hearing, and it stands unless you get the US Court of Appeals to overturn it, and that's a long and expensive process.

 

[poadeleted20]

I don't have a specific question in mind, but just I after I posted this someone in a thread about filing '/U' suggested that someone ought to ask the FAA Chief Counsel for an opinion on the 'legal' way to file a flight plan.

Who suggested that? Certainly not I. I did say that if you asked Flight Standards or the Chief Counsel, they'd tell you the same thing I did, but I did not suggest writing to the Chief Counsel for an interpretation.

 

[Palmpilot]

It's easier (and usually cheaper when lawyers are involved) to ask forgiveness than to ask permission....

There was a local radio personality who used to end each broadcast with that adage. He's in prison now.

 

[JimNtexas]

... it stands unless you get the US Court of Appeals to overturn it, and that's a long and expensive process.

1) FAA 'interpretations' do not, in fact, "have the force of law". You will only be violated for violating the black letter law contained in the U.S. code. In our world, we're taking about Title 14 of the U.S. Code.

An FAA interpretation is a piece of interesting paper in a file somewhere in a binder in an office somewhere in and FAA building somewhere. In no way is it any kind of 'law'. It may or may not be on the web somewhere, and if it is on the web there is an excellent chance that url be 404 tomorrow.

2) As I pointed out, the FAA interpretation of the U.S. Code does tell you what argument the FAA might make if they violate a person for a section of the U.S. Code about which they have written an interpretation.

3) As I pointed out if you don't heed an FAA interpretation of the U.S. Code you need to be ready to defend your interpretation in court.

4) As I pointed out if you are violated for breaking the U.S. Code you must go through the broken FAA/NTSB administrative law procedures. I didn't mention because it is so obvious, but these 'administrative law judges' are FAA employees and are going to give a lot of weight to what the FAA has written in binders in an FAA building somewhere.

It's very probably that you will have to exhaust the FAA/NTSB administrative system before you can go to a real Federal Court where a real judge who doesn't work for the FAA or NTSB will review your case. It should be obvious that this will be an expensive process.

I contrasted the FAA approach with the far more rational approach used by IRS to provide clarifications of their part of the U.S. Code to illustrate the way a better managed agency handles this sort of thing.

FAA interpretations can come and go with or without notice. Nobody in the FAA is responsible for maintaining a current list of the interpretations currently in use by the current version of the FAA.

Seeking an FAA interpretation as an answer to a question is a highly dangerous move. Dangerous to the questioner, and very dangerous to all users of the airspace.

It should only be done if there is a critical specific need, and only after engaging qualified counsel to review the exact wording of the question and the probably responses from the FAA.

The practice of a handful of CFI's to request interpretations just to scratch some emotional itch is extremely harmful to the aviation community.

That is why is I say Never, ever, ask the chief counsel a question@

 

[JeffDG]

1) So, you don't recognize the FARs? You can't be violated for violating the FARs, because you know they're not part of the US Code, they're part of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The Administrative Procedures Act and a whole line of US Supreme Court rulings differ from your reading (google "Auer Deference" or "Chevron Deference") in that interpretations by the Agency, in the FAAs case, the Chief Counsel, are to be followed by the courts unless it can be shown (by the accused) to be "arbitrary or capricious". This standard is very difficult to defeat for anything within the Code of Federal Regulations.

The standard of deference that the agency has with respect to the US Code itself is somewhat lower, but still considerable, but again, as almost nothing to do with aviation is actually contained within the US Code, that's mostly irrelevant.

 

[DutchessFlier]

"Vasser"

BTW its Vassar

But, you knew that Jimbo

But, hey, on a serious note....WTH has got you so freekin paranoid?

 

[RotorAndWing]

The standard of deference that the agency has with respect to the US Code itself is somewhat lower, but still considerable, but again, as almost nothing to do with aviation is actually contained within the US Code, that's mostly irrelevant.

Title 49 USC, subtitle VII

 

[JeffDG]

Title 49 USC, subtitle VII

I know, but the vast majority of law with respect to aviation exists in Title 14 CFR. Most of what 49 USC does is establishes the organization and process for writing 14 CFR.

 

[Tommy3]

Out of curiosity, could you all please describe what your qualifications are for commenting on an issue like this? Are you all administrative lawyers? Do any of you have a law degree at all?

To paraphrase Harry Frankfurt, one of the salient reasons that I avoid the Internet is that there is so much bull**** on it.

 

[Jaybird180]

Out of curiosity, could you all please describe what your qualifications are for commenting on an issue like this? Are you all administrative lawyers? Do any of you have a law degree at all?

Didn't your law Professor teach you to never ask a question you don't already know the answer for?


wait....isn't that the definition of a dumb question

 

[midlifeflyer]

1) FAA 'interpretations' do not, in fact, "have the force of law". You will only be violated for violating the black letter law contained in the U.S. code. In our world, we're taking about Title 14 of the U.S. Code.

How in heaven's name would any of us be violated for violating the US Code title dealing with the Coast Guard?