USA v. Oxx and the District Judge's Findings

[bps]

I am in the process of writing an extended argumentative essay on the National Park Service's discrimination against BASE jumping.

My aim is to produce an effective written argument that will educate the public on the sport of BASE jumping and our right to recreat on public-access lands.

I am stuck in one particular area that I am researching and I know that one of you may have the answer...

In USA v. Oxx, the District Judge found that "Delivering by parachute" as used in 36 CFR 2.17(a) (3) was an ambiguous phrase.

Aplt. App. 22, USA v. Oxx:

"In a broad sense, delivery is to put another's possesion or power, to surrender or hand over ("deliver" the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1981 Ed.). If a person is on Lake Powell and climbs a cliff to jump from the cliff back on to Lake Powell, what is he delivering and to whom is he delivering it. Common sense dictates that he is not delivering himself to himself."

And with that, the district judge found the regulation to be ambiguous and ruled that criminal statutes should be so definite and certain that a person of ordinary intelligence should know what is prohibited.

The District Judge went on to find that ambiguity existed between "illegal air delivery" and "the landing of powerless aircraft on the surface of Lake Powell" and ruled in the favor of Oxx.

My understanding is that this judgement was later overturned in an appeal by the US Government.

Does anyone have any documentation on the appeal -or- the judges ruling on the above items during the appeal? I cannot seem to find any current documentation on the net.

Thanks for any input!

C-ya...

Bryan

[guest]

If you can't find it on the WWW, then I won't even bother trying. I *do* have access to a lot of US reports on plain old paper, though. But before I go looking, can you let me have a bit more info in terms of dates, state, circuit etc. Without more, it would be like looking for a needle in a haystack (especially for a Brit).
Drop me an email and when (if) I have a spare hour or so, I will go and see what I can find (that is if no BASE-jumping attorney out there gets there first).

[guest]

Bryan,

somewhere in these PILES of legal papers, memorandums, briefings, motions, etc., I DO have the information you seek.....however, as my darling husband is less than well organized, and i just haven't had the time to go thru it all as yet, I cannot promise when I'll actually locate it. Try Fred's office.....if his secretary is too busy (which is very probably the situation)let me know and I'll make a concerted effort to locate those documents for you........

let me know dude....

peace & blue skies......brenda

[imported_mknutson]

Of coarse the ones I have are under "Legal" page here.

But there is about 100 pages more that are just papaer.

Does anyone on the west coast have the ability to scan 100 documents into an Adobe .pdf file(s)?

I want to put these online and recieved them from Fred himself.

[guest]

I'm wondering about your aim...
"...to produce an effective written argument that will educate the public on the sport of BASE jumping and our right to recreat on public-access lands."
Isn't it the court (judges) we need to educate at this point? I'm thinking "amacus currie(sp?)" or "friend of the court" legal briefing may be where you want to take this. That would mean technical legal briefing, not an essay for the general public. Just a thought.

A few other thoughts:

The "delivery" angle may be a good one where the launch point is in NPS land, since it may not be "delivery" at all in that case (already in the park, not "being delivered" there).

In the NPS regs there is some stuff on recurring recreational activity that may be of use.

The FAA defines an aircraft as any device used or intended to be used for flight through air. This may or may not be useful since you get into definitions of flight and the legal classification of parachute as flight vehicle. There may not be a precident for that, which doesn't help.

We must be able to use technical details with complete skill and familarity, while at the same time not fixating on them as an end. We must always remember the big picture: Discrimination from equal access to freely recreate on public land.

This makes me wonder if some of the access battles that USPA and DZs have fought for skydiving at public airports may be of some use. I'm sure Fred M. has considered this. If they really are the US PARACHUTE Association then they should be aiding in this effort. Somehow I don't think they will, however.

I've got some technical education (& a spell checker!) that I've been trying to figure out how to use lately. The more of the relavant legal proceedings and statutes that are available on-line, the better for any of us who may be able to help in this effort.

Blah blah blah

-Tim

[guest]

Hey Tim - try these for a start.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill...5011/glaw.html

http://www.nps.gov/legal/

http://www.capweb.net/politicalacces...a/sindex.morph

http://www.counselquest.com/

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/

http://lib.law.washington.edu/resear....html#fedrules

http://www.sarinfo.bc.ca/Library/Res...bResource.html

After you've exhausted these, let me know and I'll get you some more. However, I think the most important issue is for the BASE community to agree, not only on a plan of action, but on the objectives. If the sole objective is access to National Parks then a pr campaign is in order. At the moment the only publicity BASE has received has been bad. It's time for an educational campaign with a "spokesman" or "spokeswoman" who can come across as a normal, reliable member of society (i.e. gainfully employed, dressed appropriately, etc.) The public perception of BASE jumpers is a group of fringe lunatics and in order to change this perception an orchestrated campaign is required. This means that all interviews are given by selected individuals, etc. so that the message is consistent. So long as individuals continue to compare BASE jumpers to the Jews in Nazi Germany and to the Blacks in the 60's they will continue to alienate the general public. Put it in perspective which is to keep the focus on access. Attacking the press and the Park Rangers only backfires.

My thoughts for the day.
Elaine

[guest]

Scanning text into PDF files is no problem for me.
I'd be glad to help.
Just e-mail me at the usual address.