quote:

Login/JoinWelcome, CervantesFan [Logout]

16889342
Basic Training

Has anyone experienced a situation that was so contrived it was laughable at the outset but by the time it was over the situation became so threatening that I was forced to resign. The charges leveled at me were fairly benign at the outset but the FC build them so craftily that I just had to sign.
Thinking back I regret the decision because the FC had lied to get me out.
If anyone had the same EXPERIENCE HOW DID YOU HANDLE IT? i FEEL THAT COHERSION IS A VIOLATION OF MY CIVIL RIGHTS AND LEGAL ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN

quote:

Originally posted by FL51D7:
Other laws bar the Aux from direct law enforcement and military missions.

I think it is policy not law.

The military prohibition is written into Title 14 Coast Guard.

14 USC 821

quote:

Administration of the Coast Guard Auxiliary

(a) The Coast Guard Auxiliary is a nonmilitary organization administered by the Commandant under the direction of the Secretary.

The law enforcement prohibition is also 'in there' but a bit more difficult to extract. First of all to have law enforcement authority the law must explicitly grant it to a person or position. No such law exists for the Aux.

You also need to understand that Coasties derive their law enforcement powers from the old Revenue Cutter Service and their position as customs officers. Auxies aren't customs officers.

So the miltiary prohibition is direct and the no law enforcement is indirect since no grant of authority exists for the Aux.

Cool, thanks for the update. Laws change with the times.

--M

Well not to pour gas on the fire...

quote:

TITLE 14 > PART II > CHAPTER 23 > § 831
§ 831. Assignment and performance of duties

No member of the Auxiliary, solely by reason of such membership, shall be vested with, or exercise, any right, privilege, power, or duty vested in or imposed upon the personnel of the Coast Guard or the Reserve, except that any such member may, under applicable regulations, be assigned duties, which, after appropriate training and examination, he has been found competent to perform, to effectuate the purposes of the Auxiliary. No member of the Auxiliary shall be placed in charge of a motorboat, yacht, aircraft, or radio station assigned to Coast Guard duty unless he has been specifically designated by authority of the Commandant to perform such duty. Members of the Auxiliary, when assigned to duties as herein authorized shall, unless otherwise limited by the Commandant, be vested with the same power and authority, in the execution of such duties, as members of the regular Coast Guard assigned to similar duty. When any member of the Auxiliary is assigned to such duty he may, pursuant to regulations issued by the Secretary, be paid actual necessary traveling expenses, including a per diem allowance in conformity with standardized Government travel regulations in lieu of subsistence, while traveling and while on duty away from his home. No per diem shall be paid for any period during which quarters and subsistence in kind are furnished by the Government, and no per diem shall be paid for any period while such member is performing duty on a vessel.

--M

quote:

Originally posted by CervantesFan:

quote:

Login/JoinWelcome, CervantesFan [Logout]

16889342
Basic Training

Has anyone experienced a situation that was so contrived it was laughable at the outset but by the time it was over the situation became so threatening that I was forced to resign. The charges leveled at me were fairly benign at the outset but the FC build them so craftily that I just had to sign.
Thinking back I regret the decision because the FC had lied to get me out.
If anyone had the same EXPERIENCE HOW DID YOU HANDLE IT? i FEEL THAT COHERSION IS A VIOLATION OF MY CIVIL RIGHTS AND LEGAL ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN

Talk to your District CRC, you can go direct, no chain of anything required.

--M

Well not to pour gas on the fire...

The granting LE authority is specific and only grants it to CG officers (commissioned, warrant and petty). It does not give the Commandant permission to delegate it. He cannot give it to non-rates and he cannot give it to Auxies - who aren't even federal employees.

If the Commandant could do that then blue lights on Aux vessels wouldn't be an issue but it is and they are totally banned.

If anyone had the same EXPERIENCE HOW DID YOU HANDLE IT? i FEEL THAT COHERSION IS A VIOLATION OF MY CIVIL RIGHTS AND LEGAL ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN

BTDT and have the bloody t-shirt. First of all you shouldn't have signed anything. You should have made them throw you out. The process is so rigged that a Bilge Mouse going against the chain will certainly lose.

You will also have a hard time proving cohersion unless you have witnesses.

Further, membership in the Aux is a priviledge not a right so you will have a hard time building a case and showing harm. However, gjd has a nice legal theory to explore if he will post it again.

Talk to your District CRC, you can go direct, no chain of anything required.

In the 7th District that would be a complete waste of time. The District newsletter, about 2 years ago, even printed up a short article that the CRC is the DCOs fixer, read that as hatchet man. He has run at least 2 fraudulent investigations that I know of. They were fraudulent in that he deliberately did not call all the witnesses and in one did not even notfiy one of the parties to the dispute that hearings were even being held. And that is just for openers.

quote:

Originally posted by FL51D7:
Well not to pour gas on the fire...

The granting LE authority is specific and only grants it to CG officers (commissioned, warrant and petty). It does not give the Commandant permission to delegate it. He cannot give it to non-rates and he cannot give it to Auxies - who aren't even federal employees.

If the Commandant could do that then blue lights on Aux vessels wouldn't be an issue but it is and they are totally banned.

Really, I am not too worried about it. I am fine not being LE, and for what it is worth, the AD can't figure out where they stand as far as LE goes either. (A few weeks ago I watched non-rates participate as boarding team members, guess nobody told their command they can't be LE. Maybe it was an exception for training...yeah, that's it.)

We have "employee" numbers, we just aren't paid. This should provide some really nice fodder for a class action suit some day. (Lord knows we have more skills than the TSA.)

Use a blue light, go to the brig. People seem determined to keep testing that limit. Goofs.

--M

quote:

Talk to your District CRC, you can go direct, no chain of anything required.

In the 7th District that would be a complete waste of time. The District newsletter, about 2 years ago, even printed up a short article that the CRC is the DCOs fixer, read that as hatchet man. He has run at least 2 fraudulent investigations that I know of. They were fraudulent in that he deliberately did not call all the witnesses and in one did not even notfiy one of the parties to the dispute that hearings were even being held. And that is just for openers.

Well it is supposed to work differently. You can always step over to the AD CRC I've seen that happen before, talk about the wheels coming off the cart...lots happened after that adventure (thank goodness it didn't involve me).

--M

A big issue for the AUX in general is fewer "rights" inside the organization than outside. Granted membership is a "gift". Easiest example of this is... as a private citizen I can have an armory aboard my boat, show up to the same boat as an AUXie and you can't even unload the silly things.

BUT, to move things back on topic...

The largest single failure of the organization and has been illustrated by many posters and lived by more than a few of us is... drum roll... A HRM (Human Resource Management) failure. Pretty much sums it all up. AUXDATA is not a HR tool, our FC's are often left to invent the wheel time and time again as people move up, move over, move out or die. Leadership training is spotty. I could go on, but I shall not bore you more.

--M

I guess I didn't go back far enough.. why & who has the big need for the "blue lights" on CG AUX vessels?

Wray...

Wray,

It was just a side reference in this thread. Blue Lightitis is a disease the Aux has been fighting for several years. It is/was mostly confined to 1SR, the Blue Light District. Rare outbreaks are reported in other districts, usually the 7th caused by refugees (transfers) from 1SR.

The real cause of Blue Lightitis is rampant wannabeeism and a desire to play "Me a Cowboy, Me A Cowboy, Me an Auxie Cowboy."

The official reason given was so that CG and LE boats could identify a boat as an Auxie boat. Why a blue light doesn't confuse an Auxie boat with a Real LE Boat is something those without the disease cannot understand. However, the confusion can be cleared up if you actually ask one who suffers from the disease why the red/amber light isn't sufficient. I tried this exercise more then once and the answer is always the same. The answer you will get is that without the blue light no boater will obey the Auxies orders. and that is at the root of the disease. No one has to follow an Auxies orders since Auxies have no LE authority and cannot order anyone, including their own members, to do anything. The Blue Light lets them impersonate Real LE officers and play the role while violating the very law they think they are enforcing.

There was a big blow up over this issue on this board about three years ago. At the height of the 'discussion' BoatUS picked its Flotilla of the Year. The Navigator, the Nat Aux pub, published a color picture of a boat from the Flotilla of the Year on the inside back cover. There is all its Infamy and in full color was a blue light on top of the boat. That did it. The CG made absolulely clear to the Aux that blue lights were not authorized and had to be removed. The CG put absolutely clear language to that effect in the AuxMan.

But that still didn't fix the problem. The DirAux of 1SR published on her website (since removed) a notice that she had gotten reports from LE agencies throughout her district of Auxie boats running with illegal blue lights. She had a list, she checked it twice and wasn't happy how many had been naughty not nice. DirAux1SR got the LE agencies to hold off prosecution. She gave the Diseased a short period of time to turn the lights in. Simple removal was not good enough. Apparently in the past, when a Blue Lighter was caught they removed the light. The disease went into remission but would flare back up again and the blue light would be reinstalled. This time the light had to be turned in and (to switch analogies) the Blue Lighter had to sign a statement that they would Sin No More. If the light was not turned in then DirAux1SR would Green Light the LE agencies to go after the Blue Lighters.

We never did hear the outcome of that.

Meanwhile, reports of illegal Blue Lights continue to surface. Although the emphasis has been on Blue Lights, illegal sirens also turn up on Aux boats. I think the very first video from "Aux My Boat" featured a siren.

Further, even if the legal red/amber light is installed, Auxies still cannot use that to run down recreational boaters or violate any speed restricted zone, nor does it confer any privileges - but Auxies do all of that - sometimes they even get caught doing it on their own 'bragging videos'.

quote:

Further, even if the legal red/amber light is installed, Auxies still cannot use that to run down recreational boaters or violate any speed restricted zone, nor does it confer any privileges - but Auxies do all of that - sometimes they even get caught doing it on their own 'bragging videos'.

Well if people would just follow the NAV Rules it would be pretty clear.

quote:

§ 88.11 Law enforcement vessels (a) Law enforcement vessels may display a flashing blue light when engaged in direct law enforcement or public safety activities. This light must be located so that it does not interfere with the visibility of the vessel’s navigation lights. (b) The blue light described in this section may be displayed by law enforcement vessels of the United States and the States and their political subdivisions.

§ 88.12 Public Safety Activities (a) Vessels engaged in government sanctioned public safety activities, and commercial vessels performing similar functions, may display an alternately flashing red and yellow light signal. This identification light signal must be located so that it does not interfere with the visibility of the vessel’s navigation lights. The identification light signal may be used only as an identification signal and conveys no special privilege. Vessels using the identification light signal during public safety activities must abide by the Inland Navigation Rules, and must not presume that the light or the exigency gives them precedence or right of way.

Bold and italics added by me.

In our AOR (well most of the time...) if we have an issue with a boater it is really easy to fix, "PATCOM PATCOM AUX VESSEL LIKI TIKI... (think "red rover red rover send LE on over") the boater will often find themselves volunteering for a boarding by CG, Sheriff, PD etc. The joys of radios and working well as a team.

--M

quote:

Originally posted by 7555925:

Really, I am not too worried about it. I am fine not being LE, and for what it is worth, the AD can't figure out where they stand as far as LE goes either. (A few weeks ago I watched non-rates participate as boarding team members, guess nobody told their command they can't be LE. Maybe it was an exception for training...yeah, that's it.)

We have "employee" numbers, we just aren't paid. This should provide some really nice fodder for a class action suit some day. (Lord knows we have more skills than the TSA.)

Use a blue light, go to the brig. People seem determined to keep testing that limit. Goofs.

--M

Get your facts straight before posting.

Active Duty and Reservist Coast Guard NonRates CAN be Boarding Team MEMBERS (must be weaps qualified); they just cannot be Boarding OFFICERS. BOARDING OFFICERS are Petty Officers, Chief Petty Officers, Commissioned Chief Warrant Officers and Officers. Not 'all' E-4's and above are necessarily Boarding Officers though; they must be fully trained and qualified to be deemed 'Boarding Officer'.

I was pretty sure they were MEMBERS of a boarding team (if you want to split hairs, a BTO is also a BT member but a BT member does not have to be an Officer...whew). They have guns, wear vests, I didn't see training wheels... so, are BT members LE? How would anyone know (aside from their collar devices)? In my experience... Position of authority, uniform, with a gun, asking questions, giving direction USUALLY means LE (military excepted). Oh, FWIW, I do know what a BTO is, but thanks

I believe the overall point to these posts are that things are more than a bit confusing.

--M

quote:

Originally posted by 7555925:
I was pretty sure they were MEMBERS of a boarding team (if you want to split hairs, a BTO is also a BT member but a BT member does not have to be an Officer...whew). They have guns, wear vests, I didn't see training wheels... so, are BT members LE? How would anyone know (aside from their collar devices)? In my experience... Position of authority, uniform, with a gun, asking questions, giving direction USUALLY means LE (military excepted). Oh, FWIW, I do know what a BTO is, but thanks

I believe the overall point to these posts are that things are more than a bit confusing.

--M

Yes, BTM's are considered 'LE' (not a rating but a colateral duty); though they DO NOT have the same authority as Boarding Officers. While yes, in the eyes of whomever is being boarded, they can be construed as an authority per se' (er....'maritime law enforcement presence') but they are not 'the' authority of the boarding itself. They are more as assistants to the Boarding Officer. The Boarding Officer conducts the boarding and instructs the BTM's to positions, orders, etc. In that, a BTM can only relay the orders of the Boarding Officer and reports to the Boarding Officer of discrepancies, issues, etc. They are also tactically trained should the need to exercise so arise. Agreed, BO's are also BTM's. One must be a BTM before procuring their BO qualification. Boarding Officers typically attend an intense Marine Law Enforcement School to procure the BO certification. Not everyone in the CG is a BTM though; BTM's have to be specific weapons qualified and go through some training to be certified as well. The CG is not going to throw any Nonrate or other higher ranking/rated member a weapon and automatically make them a BTM.

As far as civilians questioning authority of any BTM, it wouldn't be a good idea.

*edited for spelling/grammar*

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SearchNRescue,

Thanks for the info.

quote:

As far as civilians questioning authority of any BTM, it wouldn't be a good idea.

Sure is fun to watch.

--M

Does anyone know who the CRC for District 1 SR is? If I ask anyone in the chain I'll get stonewalled. The DSO-PS is the wife of my DCP who is part of the problem. My Fso-PS has shunned me and E-directory and the web sites are no help
Thanks
Bruce

quote:

Originally posted by CervantesFan:
Does anyone know who the CRC for District 1 SR is? If I ask anyone in the chain I'll get stonewalled. The DSO-PS is the wife of my DCP who is part of the problem. My Fso-PS has shunned me and E-directory and the web sites are no help
Thanks
Bruce

Partway down, on the right. D1 SR

--M