Drone Law Journal

[Bartman]

Not sure why you'd call me "an opportunist," or why you'd falsely claim that I "never did practice." I have never stated anywhere online or otherwise that I "never did practice." Nor has anyone else. Would you kindly tell me your source for that false statement?

The fact is I do practice, and I have since 1994. I list myself online as "non-practicing" solely because I don't accept clients. I do legal work only for public interest and never for a fee. That's right, I do it for free. In this instance I am merely trying to assist the R/C flying population by explaining the current state of "drone law," for free. I'm not seeking to represent anyone. It even says that on the site. Not sure how doing public interest law without clients and for free makes me "an opportunist."

If you don't like the opinions I am asserting on the site, you are certainly free to disagree. However, making false statements about me in a public forum is really not the proper thing to do.

You are correct about one thing, however. I do fly a Phantom. In fact I had an interesting flight last week that might change your mind about me being "an opportunist." You might have read about it or saw it on the news. Here's a link to one of the news accounts: Drone Helped Avert Danger In Yesterday's Branford Fire

from your sachs.net website

I’m an attorney, (non-practicing), a licensed private investigator (CT, NY, MA, RI), a photographer, a member of a volunteer fire department, an EMT, a helicopter pilot, a drone pilot, a legal blogger, a geek, a muckraker and a polymath. I added the last one so you’d look it up if you don’t already know its meaning.

i said you seem like an opportunist because you actually don't have a full time interest in the law as it applies to drones but it's a hot topic right now and probably worth a few bucks if you're the first to offer the specialty (real or perceived) so your website isn't quite what it may seem to someone who's familiar with something like the New York Law Journal.

www.newyorklawjournal.com

in re-reading your bio info it says you don't practice, not that you never did so i've corrected that statement

I’ve been licensed to practice law in CT since 1994, but I choose not to. I just happen to prefer the PI business. Oh, so I don’t run afoul of the State of Connecticut Attorney Website Registration rules, this website is not intended to be an offer of legal services or advice. Any opinion express here is my personal opinion. I speak on behalf of no person or entity. I do not seek to represent anyone, nor will I.

 

[Motopreserve]

Unfortunately "good" news is not newsworthy enough. It does not draw in viewers. "Bad" news "sells". All the media cares abut are their ratings, news may be a tertiary concern; if that. And we the general public have been dumbed down to simplistic, concrete thinking- "drones". It's all the general public can "comprehend" or want to comprehend.

Well, I do understand what you're saying Jay. But if bad news is what they want, it wouldn't hurt for the next 100 boneheads who crash their craft into a crowd of innocent bystanders to refer to the offending vehicle as something other than "drone." How about PDAVBWM? "Potentially Dangerous Aerial Vehicle But Without Missiles." Too long?

 

[Bartman]

Hello Peter - sorry that you got a negative reaction here - seems the "drone" world is full of cynical ostriches

Any update on the Trappy case? Do you know when anything is due to happen?

Jes, you're just full of judgements, however you don't sit in my office with me to see the the quite regular stream of new "experts" requesting all sorts of exposure opportunities from the website I operate. So there is something of a basis to be cynical, especially given the rather shallow nature of the subject's drone experience and my personal determination to keep this website from being a conduit through which others take advantage of the community.

If the Drone Law Journal proves to be a sincere support mechanism for the community then time will bear that out and I'll gladly eat my words. From my first look last night though, it seemed a bit dubious. He joined the site this month and the oldest post at his site appears to be Oct, 2013.

I would be interested to hear his take on the Trappy case, as you've already mentioned.

 

[petersachs]

Thanks for setting this up Peter... Not sure what your motivation exactly is but... I was glad to see your site was not full of ads or banners.

My motivation is quite simple— doing the right thing. To me, doing the right thing is motivation enough. I have a problem with a governmental agency claiming things that are untrue. So I call them on it. I have a long history of going after wrongdoing in government. (See my personal website, sachs.net.) I've never charge a cent to anyone for anything I do as an attorney because I represent no one but myself. I make my living as a private investigator, not as an attorney. As I've said here, on my drone law site and on my personal site, I do not seek to represent anyone. I actually am just trying to help fellow RC enthusiasts.

 

[Bartman]

My motivation is quite simple— doing the right thing. To me, doing the right thing is motivation enough. I have a problem with a governmental agency claiming things that are untrue. So I call them on it. I have a long history of going after wrongdoing in government. (See my personal website, sachs.net.) I've never charge a cent to anyone for anything I do as an attorney because I represent no one but myself. I make my living as a private investigator, not as an attorney. As I've said here, on my drone law site and on my personal site, I do not seek to represent anyone. I actually am just trying to help fellow RC enthusiasts.

ok then, welcome to the site, we'll look forward to your contributions.

are you familiar with the "trappy" case?

 

[petersachs]

ok then, welcome to the site, we'll look forward to your contributions.

are you familiar with the "trappy" case?

Thanks, Yes, I am very familiar with it. But rather than explain it here, you can hear it (or read it rather) directly from his very competent attorney.
Here's an article that was published in Forbes just a few hours ago.

 

[petersachs]

The FAA has been caught lying in copies of the "cease & desist" letters it has been sending to "commercial operators." The copies obtained via FOIA by a gentleman named Patrick McKay, not me.
Pretty much proves the FAA is either lying about, or is simple unfamiliar with the US Code and it own regulations. Interesting reading.

 

[Motopreserve]

The plot thickens....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Motopreserve]

I spent a little time clicking though the links that began here with your previous post. In finally landing on the actual brief that "Trappy's" lawyer wrote requesting dismissal, it dawned on me that the use if the term "model aircraft" is thrown around a lot. I'm wondering if this case will force the issue of differences between Multirotors and "model" (or scale) craft, which have a rich history, and are typically not feared capable of infringing on privacy.

Obviously model/scale Helis would fall in the middle somewhere - hobbyist recreation and ability to hover outside your window and film your dark, dirty secrets...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Bartman]

do what I do, keep your dark secrets in the basement....but then I should fear RC trucks with cameras outside my basement windows?

 

[jbrumberg]

and submersibles to watch one swimming... Scary thought in my case- a fresh water beluga... It all comes down to the owner/operator and their decisions.

 

[Motopreserve]

do what I do, keep your dark secrets in the basement....but then I should fear RC trucks with cameras outside my basement windows?

Good point. Maybe quad manufacturers should start shipping quads with blackout shades for your neighbors....

 

[Bartman]

Good point. Maybe quad manufacturers should start shipping quads with blackout shades for your neighbors....

does anyone else see how this place just breeds great ideas??

 

[Motopreserve]

does anyone else see how this place just breeds great ideas??

.

 

[SamaraMedia]

Here are a couple videos posted by a local TV station that first ran Peter's video of a quarry fire in Branford where he is the Captain of the Fire Police for the town's volunteer fire department. First video is about how his use of the Phantom V2 helped provide valuable information for firefighters on site where explosives were present, the second is a report about the FAA looking into a case where Hartford Police reported someone operating a drone over an active fatal car accident.

http://foxct.com/2014/01/30/quarry-fire-near-explosives-creates-major-concern/

http://foxct.com/2014/02/07/faa-investigating-possible-illegal-use-of-drone-at-hartford-crash-scene/

 

[petersachs]

From yesterday:

Hartford, CT police didn't like this journalist, (while "off the clock"), flying his Phantom 150' over a car accident. They "determined" it was illegal, (based on the Advisory Circular of all things), and contacted his employer. FAA claims it's investigating.

http://wtnh.com/2014/02/07/lawyer-drones-completely-legal-laws-non-existent/

http://foxct.com/2014/02/07/update-faa-investigation-into-drone-use-at-fatal-crash-scene/