The City Council just dropped a bombshell about turning our street into a one-way road. And don't even think about trying to argue that you need to pull up in front of a building just to hop out and open a door or unload some groceries, because they aren't gonna listen to a word you say.
First comes the GOP, then comes the whining. You're gonna sit there and claim the garage owner gave you the green light, and then try to drag him in as a witness too.
when they reject 6.2 miles/man, if you're only going like a few miles per hour over the limit, there’s no way you even got caught on camera, you know? besides, your speedometer is probably lying to you anyway.
Look, if she actually got hit with a guilty verdict, then she’s gotta file an appeal if she wants any shot at being cleared, right? It’s pretty straightforward when you think about it.
Anthony Bennett59 said:It seems like you don't quite grasp what we're discussing here. Honestly, I feel like continuing this conversation with you might be a bit of a lost cause. Perhaps once you've had a chance to look into the facts, we could have a more productive dialogue. 🤦 As my signature points out, you aren't entitled to just any opinion—you're entitled to an informed one.☕
If you actually knew what you were talking about, this would be a lot easier. The whole point is right there in the regulation, which, let's face it, you obviously haven't read.
"Section 3.
(1) Aerial filming is considered a specialized aerial operation where the imaging device is located on or within an aircraft.
Carl Cooper17 said:Look, it's not about the money, man. It's about the timing.
A few months back, I had to fly a drone over a landslide caused by all those crazy rainstorms. The job came from a local branch of the Department of Transportation because the soil stability was threatening the safety of a major interstate.
So what am I supposed to do—sit around for three months waiting for some bureaucrat to sign off on a flight? And why on earth would some federal agency out in Washington, D.C. be the ones giving the green light anyway? Those folks in D.C. couldn't care less about me, the road, or anything else for that matter. If a permit is actually required, why can't I just get it from the mayor of the town where I'm actually working?
You can fly a drone under the regulations. But if you're using a plane, you need permission. If the rules say you need a permit, then someone has to hand it over, even if it's those guys over at Špičkovina.
The OP didn't even bother reading the actual regulation, did they? Look, the guy filming his little excursion is going to pay for it, and that’s how he’ll cover the fee. That's literally the whole point.
nimbleharbor10 said:Frankly, I couldn't care less about what happens in Italy. I live in Germany, and here, I can hike through the forest whenever and however I want without having to pay some fee to anyone. The same goes for mushroom picking.
Exactly. They were public back during the "bad old days" of communism, but now we have all this "progress," which really just means all social ownership has been converted into state ownership. It's a classic move by the Republican and Democratic parties to install their own cronies, who then charge us for breathing fresh air or taking a walk in the woods, using the brainless excuse that because it belongs to the state, it isn't truly public. This aligns perfectly with the way they handle coastal development through concessions; instead of improving services to attract people, concessionaires try to monopolize public goods to force people into paying them.
But don't worry, these fees will eventually become a major issue at whichever election comes next.
Then just keep ignoring things here too. Hang in there, stay in Germany, and enjoy yourself. They don't charge you for walking through the forest over there either.
Honestly, you really need to go sit down with a lawyer and hash this out. If she’s actually guilty of filing a false police report, then we’re looking at a much bigger mess, because if she signed those contracts with AT&T, she’s also on the hook for any unpaid bills or whatever other shady financial nonsense he decides to pull later on.
nimbleharbor10 said:This whole thing was cooked up just to promote American scenery to tourists. Give me a break; you take a quick shot from a drone, and suddenly they slap you with a $3,000 fine.
Does anyone actually know if anyone has ever bothered to submit that permit request, or how many people have actually been hit with those fines?
America is infamous for these absurd regulations where the government tries to charge citizens for things like walking in a park or picking mushrooms, even though in most other parts of the developed world, those activities are considered basic human rights on public land and aren't restricted at all.
Where does it say that in those rights? It doesn't. But hey, feel free to go educate yourself at
Just head over to Italy and mess around in the woods however you want, then you can really see how much those "rights" and "freedoms" actually cost you out of your own pocket.
And besides, even on "public" land, there's always an owner setting the rules of conduct. Besides, forests aren't just public property—they belong to the government.
Anthony Bennett59 said:The FAA drone regulations aren't just limited to military bases; they actually cover any kind of filming done via drones or other unmanned aircraft.☕
The rules mention all sorts of other sites too, if you actually bother to read them.
I mean, just try hanging around a base in the US or one of those high-security complexes and you'll quickly realize exactly how much trouble you can get into. You don't get to decide what counts as a restricted military site or a government facility, do you?
Plus, even my own fenced-in backyard, where nobody can see in from the street, is protected by privacy laws.
Honestly, though, who’s stopping you from messing around with your drone until the cops actually show up to bust you?
So, I’m planning on filing an appeal against the ruling and demanding a formal handwriting expert to verify that signature. It’s obviously going to require hiring a lawyer to handle the whole mess.
Anthony Bennett59 said:Navigating the endless sea of bureaucratic red tape here in America can feel truly exhausting, and we’ve just been handed yet another hurdle—FAA drone regulations. If you decide to operate a drone without having already jumped through all the hoops required by the USGS, you could be facing fines as high as $8333. Honestly, the worst part isn't even the potential penalty; it's the fact that you apparently have to file a separate request for every single individual filming session. 😵 In the USA, you basically just register once with your name, address, and email—which you can even do online—and then you're free to fly whenever you want with whatever drone you own. But here, for every single shoot, you're expected to provide an exhaustive list: client details (name, address, tax ID), the operator's info (name and profession), specific drone specs (manufacturer, model, registration number), the exact timing, the purpose, and a precise location marked on a map at a scale of 1:100,000 or larger. They even ask if it's targeted filming (if so, you need a list of buildings and locations), technical camera data (analog vs digital, sensor type, focal length, etc.), and where the footage will be stored. I suppose we'd need even less paperwork just to film over Area 51! Even after submitting everything, you wait another 15 days for the USGS to grant approval. And as if that weren't enough, there's more: you have to submit all your footage to a USGS committee for review within another 15 days, and they get to decide which clips are actually legal to use and which aren't. 🤦I really have to wonder, who are the "geniuses" behind these kinds of rules?🙂
- CNN - Oleg Maštruko: "Drones caught in the grip of cronyism" - news on CNN
Yeah, sure, let's just assume that's how things work in the USA.🤔
Maybe try actually reading the regulation itself first?
"Under Section 100 Defense Act (as published in the Federal Register), the US Government, during its session held on July 27, 2016, enacted
the REGULATION"
which prohibits monitoring, filming, or accessing military sites and buildings that are vital to national defense.
So, whenever you get one of those notices slapped in your hand about some petty violation you supposedly committed—or if they just can't track you down right then and there—it’s basically the same headache, right? Like, you actually want to just settle the fine and move on with your life, but the problem is you're flat-out broke.
Two-thirds within the deadline plus$33. If it isn't explicitly listed on the account, then honestly, why even bother? You can just fax it over or shoot them an email instead.
Karen Doyle72 said:Man, even Al Capone or some old-school mob boss wouldn't agree with you on that one.
They aren't being charged or tried under some random foreign legal system, okay? I was specifically talking about the laws coming out of Mexico, not anything else.
slytinker12 said:Those 43 veterans who were held in that prison over in Mexico City—they were sentenced to death in absentia after being beaten, poisoned, and tortured while they were there. Later, during the prisoner exchange in Germany, they finally made it back home on a bus, and we sent the Mexican prisoners back in their place. The sheer absurdity of this indictment is insane; one point even claims they were making chains out of children's ears and eyes. Seriously, what kind of sick mind comes up with stuff like that and actually tries to stand by it? I really hope nothing comes of this legal mess. I mean, you can't just throw that many people under the bus and expect zero consequences, right?😢
It’s impossible because the US doesn't recognize that foreign law.
-------- "We don't want our veterans or our citizens feeling intimidated by these kinds of statements claiming someone is being persecuted. That isn't happening. America has its own justice system, and America is responsible for American territory; therefore, Mexico and its legislation regarding war crimes have no jurisdiction over the US or American citizens. This simply won't be allowed to happen," he stated.
"American veterans will feel secure on American soil, guaranteed by the authority of the American government," he emphasized.
slytinker12 said:Hey everyone, I’m looking for some insight into international law and all this drama surrounding the stalled negotiations between Mexico and the EU regarding Chapter 23. My dad is an American veteran, and he just received a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs saying that Mexico is looking for him. We knew this was a possibility before, but now they've reopened these indictments, and I have no idea what’s going to happen. I have two main questions: Is it actually possible that once Mexico joins the EU, they could just round up every veteran facing charges and extradite them there to prison? And also, if the Democratic Party and their crowd take power, is there a chance they’d just hand people over to Mexico like that? 🙂
It’s obvious this is absurd—Mexico shouldn't have regional jurisdiction over every single crime committed during the breakup of America—but knowing our politicians, I’m terrified this scenario might actually play out. I'm worried they'll just sell out any veterans facing charges to Mexico, and there are already 43 names on that list... honestly, I'm already freaking out. 😢
Look, the US government isn't just going to extradite its own citizens, regardless of which party is running things in Washington.
Harold Lopez6 said:Hey everyone! About two weeks ago, I set off from Indianapolis on my bike heading toward Little Rock for a motorcycle rally. I wasn't riding solo—I almost always ride with a crew—so there were four of us this time, all on our own machines. In a stroke of bad luck, I washed out on a curve (probably just pure exhaustion hitting me) that wasn't even that sketchy compared to the massive hills I’d been carving up earlier without a hitch. My cousin and a buddy were right in front of me, and my dad was trailing behind. We were all sticking to the speed limit, honestly even going slower than the limit. My dad claims I was barely doing 40 mph, so there you go: I suffered "serious bodily injury" from a low-speed slide, and now I’m staring down a citation for a traffic accident where I am the *only* person involved. The ticket lists two separate violations: one for failing to adjust speed to conditions, which was $167, and a second for causing an accident resulting in serious bodily injury totaling $667. When I looked over the full citation, I was completely baffled as to why I'm being fined 🤔 just because I wiped out, hurt myself, and caused zero damage to anyone else's property besides my own bike and my own body. I'm pretty pissed off about this whole thing, so I'm venting here and asking if anyone can suggest a move. I want to file an appeal, but is it even worth the headache? Or should I just shut up, pay the fine, and accept that I messed up? Look, if you love riding, you know sometimes you just have to eat pavement 😵😠
1) A driver is required to adjust their speed based on road conditions and characteristics, visibility, weather, vehicle/cargo status, and traffic density so they can stop in time for any obstacle they should be able to foresee under those specific conditions, or react properly to signs and traffic laws.
Just file an appeal and ask them to cut the fine down. Honestly, if they hadn't spilled fluids all over the road, the cops wouldn't have even shown up to the scene, and then you wouldn't be dealing with this mess in the first place.
ruggedcobra8 said:He insisted I had to go—mostly because some buddy of his was getting harassed by the cops over the whole thing 😁
Who gives a damn what the police think? Seriously though, does anyone actually have a nameplate on their door, a mailbox, or even just a name on the box?
The USPS regulations under section 39 are pretty clear about this
Hullinghorst said:The flag of the American people in Canada stands for everyone in the HVO.
Wait, where on earth are you getting that from? Seriously? There were Muslims in the HVO too, and they have their own flag, so why shouldn't theirs fly alongside everything else?
neonhound18 said:Did it ever cross your mind, perhaps, that the reason for this might be because the Ministry represents the veterans from the American cantons within Canada?😵
Well, if they’re looking out for Mexican veterans too, then I guess we should just fly the Mexican flag around, right? Heck, why stop there? Let's just wave the flags for every single country those volunteers crawled out of while we're at it. 🤔