Skip to comments.
Csonka pleads guilty to filming on federal land without permits
Kodiak Daily Mirror (AP) ^
| Feb 1, 2006
| DAN JOLING
Posted on 02/02/2006 7:33:25 AM PST by 11x62
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-84 next last
Somehow I don't think this was a major movie shoot with a cast and crew of hundreds, but a couple of guys with a video camera. But you need a permit.
1
posted on
02/02/2006 7:33:27 AM PST
by
11x62
To: 11x62
Csonka pleaded guilty to knowingly conducting work activity in a national forest without obtaining a special use permit.
What was Csonka thinking? There can NEVER be any work done on government lands without special use permits!
It might make the employees feel inadequate if they're made to do actual work.
2
posted on
02/02/2006 7:35:52 AM PST
by
Kidan
(Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions - G.K. Chesterton)
Comment #3 Removed by Moderator
Comment #4 Removed by Moderator
To: 11x62
In September, Csonka was one of six people rescued by the Coast Guard during a harrowing night aboard a rolling and pitching 28-foot boat in the Bering Sea. This is what brought them to the attention of the authorities.
Helicopter rescues at sea probably cost a lot of money.
5
posted on
02/02/2006 7:38:11 AM PST
by
E. Pluribus Unum
(Islam Factoid:After forcing young girls to watch his men execute their fathers, Muhammad raped them.)
To: 11x62
Who even knew this was illegal???
6
posted on
02/02/2006 7:39:23 AM PST
by
orionblamblam
(A furore Normannorum libra nos, Domine)
To: 11x62
Sounds like Zonk likes to push the envelope right to the edge in many ways.
But then, some sports icons feel that they can get away with a lot of things we lesser mortals can't.
Leni
7
posted on
02/02/2006 7:42:07 AM PST
by
MinuteGal
("FReeps Ahoy 4" thread is up. Click red "4" in Keywords list on top of "Latest Posts" page)
To: orionblamblam
That's what I was thinking. But I guess if you're in the business you know. In any account, big deal.
8
posted on
02/02/2006 7:42:12 AM PST
by
stevio
(Red-Blooded American Male (NRA))
To: 11x62
The Sierra Club films operations on federal lands all the time.I wonder if they have permits?
I recently took a picture of my wife on federal lands; am I guilty,or does this only apply to "commercial" ventures?
9
posted on
02/02/2006 7:42:25 AM PST
by
builder
(I don't want a piece of someone else's pie)
To: 11x62
Unless the making of this show had some special impact on the land, this has to be one of the mildest crimes possible
To: 11x62
Csonka agreed to pay $3,887 in restitution....and ....prosecutors will request a sentence of probation for one year and a $5,000 fine. Wow, that will teach him!
11
posted on
02/02/2006 7:42:48 AM PST
by
O6ret
To: dropandgimme20; billhilly; proud_yank; SJackson
I was opposed to the feds charging anyone for filming/photographing on federal lands when this policy was adopted back in the early 1990s. Still am.
These are supposed to be PUBLIC lands remember?
How is this insanity?
12
posted on
02/02/2006 7:43:02 AM PST
by
girlangler
(I'd rather be fishing)
To: 11x62
prosecutors will request a sentence of probation
Good grief.
13
posted on
02/02/2006 7:44:49 AM PST
by
HEY4QDEMS
(Learn from the past, don't live in it.)
To: 11x62
Hey, what's up with this? I want to see his shows filmed on Fed land. As a person with a disability, and confined to a wheelchair, I will most likely never be able to see these remote areas. His show allowed me access. This stinks!!! And I protest the court's action.
14
posted on
02/02/2006 7:46:07 AM PST
by
devane617
(An Alley-Cat mind is a terrible thing to waste)
To: 11x62
To: girlangler
Doesn't make much sense to me.
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Yes, you are right. I don't have a problem with the feds charging for people taking stupid/dangerous risks and for the rescue costs.
I do, howewver, have a problem with them charging the public to photograph/film on PUBLIC property.
17
posted on
02/02/2006 7:46:40 AM PST
by
girlangler
(I'd rather be fishing)
To: builder
I recently took a picture of my wife on federal lands; am I guilty,or does this only apply to "commercial" ventures?Post the pic on your web page, get some google ads to run, and bang! You're a perp.
Comment #19 Removed by Moderator
To: E. Pluribus Unum
20
posted on
02/02/2006 7:51:15 AM PST
by
johnny7
(“Iuventus stultorum magister”)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-84 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
