A parachute is a parachute is a parachute

[guest]

See the appeal court's decision at:
http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newo...6?OpenDocument

If the link doesn't work, find it at the website of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit under "Ninth Circuit Opinions" - 07/17/00, 99-10071, USA V ALBERS.

Amoung other interesting findings the court said, "we also think that ordinary people would find that the chutes, although technologically sophisticated, are still parachutes."

How supprising! :o

[guest]

The appeals court wrote:
[8] The safety threat implicated in BASE jumping is most
often the potential harm to the jumper due to the fatalities and
injuries characterizing the extreme sport. We do not, however,
discount the safety risks of BASE jumping to members of the
public particularly in areas where people are likely to congre-
gate. See e.g. Carroll, 813 F.Supp. at 704 (finding that BASE
jumping from the St. Louis Arch, which is located in the east-
ern part of downtown St. Louis, was hazardous to those on the
ground). We therefore affirm the district court's determination
that BASE jumping can create a risk of harm to the public and
defer to the courts' evidentiary findings. See Hoff, 22 F.3d at
224.


Does anyone have any information on the evidentiary findings of the lower court? In particular, did it find that there were bystanders endangered? Or did it find that there were not (and hence we can be found guilty of reckless endangerment even if there are no bystanders in the landing area)?

Any more info, or the location of any published findings of the lower court, would be appreciated.

Thanks,

--Tom Aiello

[guest]

Tom,

The lower court ruling is _a priori_ bullshit, as there were no bystanders on the ground at the St. Louis Arch, as John Vincent & Co. jumped at first light.

It's one more example of the true nature of the U.S. government as it supports its Nazi Punk minions out in the hinterlands.

The court said, echoing the Tenth Circuit opinion, that "a parachute is a parachute is a parachute," but a parachute is ALSO AN AIRCRAFT by any readinbg of the definition because an "aircraft" is simply a vehicle designed to travel through the air.
Period.

In fact, a parachute is perhaps the purest form of aircraft there is because when it's NOT traveling through the air, it's nothing but a pile of nylon.


BASE44

[guest]

The N-punks-S, your government and the Federal Court system is all one in the same. Justice is not an issue only self preservation of their collective over powering ability to rule over us, their subjects. It really is another sad day. The appellate court was again able to just consuetude the meaning of an argument to self satisfy your governments position, " WE DO NOT LIKE BASE JUMPERS".
It is hard to understand how it is legal to deliver a person or object by a parachute, helicopter and any other airborne means onto Lake Powell without a permit of "ANY" kind as pursuant to special regulations, and somehow twist that up to say BASE jumping is illegal. It "IS" legal to skydive and parachute onto the lake from an airplane without a permit. To me, an ordinary citizen (and according to the 9th Circuits decision) who should be able to understand the laws and regulations and make a reasonable decision to what they mean and how they would apply to an activity I wished to engage in is supposed to be simple and perfectly clear. What is now perfectly clear, is justice and what everybody knows to be and should be right (at Lake Powell) is just going to be suppressed by your arrogant N-punks-S and it's US Federal Court System as accomplices.
It seems "THEY" have won the battle in the 9th circuit and I expect nothing less in the 10th in these criminal misdemeanors. Now that they have spent millions of US tax dollars in this criminal judicial process and avenue, I hope they are ready for round two, the civil side.
On the judicial side we were not allowed to argue the validity of the regulation itself, only that one did exist. In this gross mismanagement of N-punks-S and It's US Federal Courts resources to prove the law was somehow broken, they have given us tons of ammunition to give one hell of an argument for discrimination in our law suit that is next and will be headed by our one and only Fred Morelli.

A little something to remember, The National Park Service was created to protect and preserve the National Parks and National Recreation Areas (which by the way is what Lake Powell is, a National Recreation Area ) for all present and future generations to enjoy, not to OWN and Rule them for their own selfish and many times prejudice and bias opinions. In some National Parks some may say Base Jumping might not be an appropriate activity. At Lake Powell which is a "RECREATION AREA" their argument is outdated, unfounded and absolutely the result of personal discrimination. They seemed to over look the FACT that, "IT'S OUR PARK TOO!!!!

Sometimes Robins words towards the NPS are harsh but he is usually right on the money. Many of them and some of their policies do have a lot in common with Hitler's Nazis.

Dennis McGlynn, Federal Prison Inmate # 1019694

[base311]

Everyone repeat after me....

"Railroaded"

- this is not surprising.

Whatever happened to strictly construing vague statutes/regulations in favor of the accused?

Oh well... continued darkness.

bsbd,
Gardner

[guest]

Robin,

I've said it before -- you'll never win this semantics arguement in a court of law.

You must attack the -intent- of the original law and not the language defining what is or is not a parachute.


Paul

[Buddman]

>Dennis McGlynn, Federal Prison Inmate #
>1019694

oooohhh!!! a FI number!!!!! I have a SI number!!

Buddman

SI 264608