Or..... they are very nervous about losing and setting a precedent for future actions.
Drone ordinance lawsuit (part 2) updated with video
- Thread starter Lapeer20m
- Start date
PortCanaveralFlorida
Well-Known Member
That's what I'm thinking. Many are watching this thread, or they should and support.
Last edited:
It’s official. The hearing is scheduled for October 7 at 10am. Circuit court, downtown flint, mi. (Don’t drink the water)
Update:
MCDO had their first hearing today. I want to say thank you to everyone who attended the hearing. There were about 10 of us, plus a reporter and our attorney.
The decision for our request for temporary injunction was put off until the next court date, tbd.
I am euphoric. The judge was well prepared and seems to have a good grasp on the matter. He asked tough questions. As usual, Dean made articulate logical arguments based on the law. Opposing council made emotional arguments and used half truths or even non-truths. Each of these points were countered by our very competent council except for the most egregious, like the concern over drones with flame throwers, that the judge wasn’t buying.
I am quite certain the judge will
Rule in our favor but in an effort to be as fair as possible gave the county more time to prepare.
I’ll include more details later after I’ve had a chance to decompress.
MCDO had their first hearing today. I want to say thank you to everyone who attended the hearing. There were about 10 of us, plus a reporter and our attorney.
The decision for our request for temporary injunction was put off until the next court date, tbd.
I am euphoric. The judge was well prepared and seems to have a good grasp on the matter. He asked tough questions. As usual, Dean made articulate logical arguments based on the law. Opposing council made emotional arguments and used half truths or even non-truths. Each of these points were countered by our very competent council except for the most egregious, like the concern over drones with flame throwers, that the judge wasn’t buying.
I am quite certain the judge will
Rule in our favor but in an effort to be as fair as possible gave the county more time to prepare.
I’ll include more details later after I’ve had a chance to decompress.
That is fantastic news!! I'm almost three weeks into a self-imposed 4-week break from this forum but just had to briefly log in to express my ongoing support for your case.
Great news. Be sure your attorney stays on top of it.
This could be a landmark case setting legal precedent for future challenges to this type of ordinance.
This could be a landmark case setting legal precedent for future challenges to this type of ordinance.
Not necessarily. See post #19 from the OP. Any potential ruling in his favor will undoubtedly be appealed to both the state appellate court, and later to the Michigan Supreme Court, if the latter appeal is not successful. This is assuming he even wins at the local level. It's a very long road. Fighting City Hall is not that easy.
"If/when this is appealed we will be seeking monetary donations. Preparing for the appellate court will likely cost at least $20k in legal fees. More if it goes to Michigan Supreme Court."
Just heard about this ordinance today, Looked through a bunch of news posts and forum threads here and found this one. Good luck on Friday, looking forward to seeing what comes of it.
I've flown Genesee County parks a lot, I wasn't aware of the ordinance they have. It wasn't around when I looked for one back in 2017. I've launched right from their HQ parking lot multiple times.. whoops.
Is there anything a local could do to help besides show up for the court hearing? It's a bit too short notice for me to be there, but ill see what I can do.
I've flown Genesee County parks a lot, I wasn't aware of the ordinance they have. It wasn't around when I looked for one back in 2017. I've launched right from their HQ parking lot multiple times.. whoops.
Is there anything a local could do to help besides show up for the court hearing? It's a bit too short notice for me to be there, but ill see what I can do.
Last edited:
excellent to have you along on our journey!
the most useful thing locals can do is show up to court on Friday afternoon.
you can join the MIchigan coalition of drone operators Facebook page for the latest info, or check back on this forum for an update.
According to the county, they’ve had an ordinance that prohibits unmanned aircraft in the parks since the 1970’s.
But it’s not true.
Finished our latest and hopefully last hearing yesterday. A little disappointed that we did not get a ruling before we left. It appears the judge recognizes this is a big case likely to be appealed and he wants to be cautious and for all the i, cross all the ts to help ensure his decision does not get overturned
the lawyers have 10 days to submit amended briefs. After that time the judge will review and issue a ruling.
more waiting, but it seems inevitable the judge will rule in our favor. He has already indicated that the park rule is in direct conflict with state law.
yesterdays hearing was almost entirely testimony and cross examination with me in the witness box. The defense objected multiple times, mostly getting overruled.
When it came time for cross examination, I am not sure if a single question was relevant to the case. The attorney representing the county seemed to have a poor understanding of the faa rules, so she asked a couple questions that made her look silly. She wanted to know if I got permission from ATC to fly in the park (uncontrolled airspace) because there is a nearby landing strip.
she also indicated that the day of my arrest, there was a complaint(s) from the railroad employees working on the steam locomotive that my mavic was disturbing them. I don’t know How many of you have been in close proximity to a steam locomotive that’s all fired up and ready to go, but it’s likely much noisier than a mavic at 200’ agl.
she also seemed disappointed to learn that I wasn’t flying over people, and that my YouTube channel is not monetized.
She also had me review a park permit that I had been questioned about earlier and I indicated one of the stipulations was a requirement for a $1m insurance policy. She brought my attention to a different section, that requires for larger events a $3m policy. (Or $5m) I’m not sure how that’s helpful. Especially since this permit is for events with 50 or more people and is only interesting to me because it has rules regulating drone use, rules which the county lacks the authority to enact or enforce.
it was a non dramatic day.
now we wait.
the lawyers have 10 days to submit amended briefs. After that time the judge will review and issue a ruling.
more waiting, but it seems inevitable the judge will rule in our favor. He has already indicated that the park rule is in direct conflict with state law.
yesterdays hearing was almost entirely testimony and cross examination with me in the witness box. The defense objected multiple times, mostly getting overruled.
When it came time for cross examination, I am not sure if a single question was relevant to the case. The attorney representing the county seemed to have a poor understanding of the faa rules, so she asked a couple questions that made her look silly. She wanted to know if I got permission from ATC to fly in the park (uncontrolled airspace) because there is a nearby landing strip.
she also indicated that the day of my arrest, there was a complaint(s) from the railroad employees working on the steam locomotive that my mavic was disturbing them. I don’t know How many of you have been in close proximity to a steam locomotive that’s all fired up and ready to go, but it’s likely much noisier than a mavic at 200’ agl.
she also seemed disappointed to learn that I wasn’t flying over people, and that my YouTube channel is not monetized.
She also had me review a park permit that I had been questioned about earlier and I indicated one of the stipulations was a requirement for a $1m insurance policy. She brought my attention to a different section, that requires for larger events a $3m policy. (Or $5m) I’m not sure how that’s helpful. Especially since this permit is for events with 50 or more people and is only interesting to me because it has rules regulating drone use, rules which the county lacks the authority to enact or enforce.
it was a non dramatic day.
now we wait.
dirkclod
Well-Known Member
Well it’s going to be a waiting thing like you said and am on
your side. But let me say this being you brought up the train.
Nothing to do with your case but I live in a small railroad town and we have train movement all day pretty much.
I do fly all around getting pictures a lot and did have a RR guard approach me 1 time. He was no issue and just watched till I landed. He did ask me if I would just not fly
when they ...the switch men..were out doing what they do
as to not distract them as they might be just looking at
the UAS and make a mistake or anything that could cause
one to get hurt. Very unlikely they would but did understand
and told him I did. He told me great and thanked me and just told me to have at it. The noise isn’t the issue it was just
the sight of it.
I think they brought it up with you just grabbing at straws.
Anyway hang in there.
your side. But let me say this being you brought up the train.
Nothing to do with your case but I live in a small railroad town and we have train movement all day pretty much.
I do fly all around getting pictures a lot and did have a RR guard approach me 1 time. He was no issue and just watched till I landed. He did ask me if I would just not fly
when they ...the switch men..were out doing what they do
as to not distract them as they might be just looking at
the UAS and make a mistake or anything that could cause
one to get hurt. Very unlikely they would but did understand
and told him I did. He told me great and thanked me and just told me to have at it. The noise isn’t the issue it was just
the sight of it.
I think they brought it up with you just grabbing at straws.
Anyway hang in there.
Maybe she was brushing up on her drone law knowledge by watching one of her favorite television shows.
Please continue to keep us informed. This is a landmark case.
- Joined
- May 25, 2017
- Messages
- 8,491
- Reactions
- 7,976
- Age
- 61
Hopefully the first para info was corrected quickly to the court, I'm sure it would have been.
The railroad 'red herring' obviously a desperate attempt to muddy the waters.
I'm hopeful for you the judge sees right through all that, and keeps his focus simply on the park rule is in direct conflict with state (and / or federal) law.
What a great clip! Thanks for sharing. Not necessarily accurate, but amusing non the less.
DJI Drone Deals
1. Mini 2
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
New Threads
-
-
-
Mini 4 Amazing DJI Mini 4 Pro ActiveTrack 360- Started by John Gowland
- Replies: 0
-
Mini 2 Day 3 part 2 Montagu pass & Outeniqua pass on a rest day- Started by Droffarc
- Replies: 0
-
Forum statistics
