PDA

View Full Version : I need a SURVIVAL EXPERT



chicojack
06-21-2007, 04:16 PM
I am a California criminal defense attorney who represents a defendant in a high profile case. I need the name(s) of a survival epxert who can help me on my client's case. Issue is whether a person lost in the forest should be able to light a signal fire to be rescued.

WildGoth
06-21-2007, 04:25 PM
well he should because i mean it is a sutioution of life or death so laws should not appile to the case i mean it is logic to try and do anything in a survaial sitution

natureboi69
06-23-2007, 11:32 AM
yer thats very true if someone is in a life or death situation a fire is a must, not only to be a source of heat but also as a rescue situation

Tony uk
06-24-2007, 05:28 PM
The laws only apply if the person is in to danger but they do not apply in a survival situation

wareagle69
07-22-2007, 08:55 PM
I am a California criminal defense attorney who represents a defendant in a high profile case. I need the name(s) of a survival epxert who can help me on my client's case. Issue is whether a person lost in the forest should be able to light a signal fire to be rescued.

go to hoods woods he is close to california, or cody lundin out of presscot arizona

wareagle69
07-22-2007, 08:56 PM
www.hoods woods.com or google cody lundin

Sarge47
07-22-2007, 09:20 PM
www.hoods woods.com or google cody lundin

Hood's Woods can be reached at www.survival.com and
Cody Lundin can be reached at his Aboriginal Living Skills School at www.alssadventures.com.

donny h
07-23-2007, 02:28 AM
Issue is whether a person lost in the forest should be able to light a signal fire to be rescued.

Of course they should, but that's not what your 'high profile' case is really about, is it? There is no such thing as 'high profile' over a signal fire, an illegal campfire is not that serious of a charge, unless the person who lit the fire let it get out of control and torched a vast swath of land, which I suspect is what happened.

If it was a simple signal fire there would be no need to surf the net looking for paid professional 'experts'.

trax
07-23-2007, 02:26 PM
What donny said, a signal fire doesn't lead to any kind of charges unless the signal happens to be an entire forest going up in flames. think your client needed a survival expert before he left home, our basic scout training maybe.

rusty_oxydado
07-23-2007, 05:03 PM
Your client has entered the grey area of the letter of the law -vs- the the intent of the law.
A person lost, or in need of emediate rescue can build a signal fire to bring attention to him/her.
California, summer time, open fire?
This really bends the light in the case just a little harshly!
I am guessing what the outcome was.
You may need show proof your client tried to do all he could to minimise all accidental damage or injury before lighting his fire.
Other than this your client needs prove the incident was a life and death attempt to be rescued.
I am Army trained for jungle, mountain, desert, and artic training. After the military I lived in the mountains as a woods tramp.
I wish you the best in trying your case.

Rusty Oxydado.

Beo
11-02-2007, 02:53 PM
Naw dude, your clients going to jail if he started the Cal. fires that did all that damage. He can light the signal fire for help, but he has to maintain control over the fire, a raging inferno is not a signal fire for help. But if he started those or any other fires that set large amounts of forest on fire then he should own up to the crime or accident, it's called being responsible and taking your lumps for your mistakes. Or he may be a big headed doof that likes to set things on fire.
I hate this topic as it bothers me when some fancy pants lawyer wants to use us to get his arsonist scumbag client off as having been in trouble in the wilderness, they never care about us so called "tree huggers or nature lovers" until they need us. Take your blood money elsewhere!
By the way how much you paying? :D jk.

wareagle69
11-04-2007, 06:37 PM
look at the date of the first post newbie..

HOP
11-04-2007, 07:58 PM
The client could have been a habitual phyro.

Beo
11-05-2007, 10:36 AM
I know the date, don't care, just jibbering off :D

dilligaf2u2
11-07-2007, 12:39 AM
I would need to know more about the case before I passed judgment. This case could have nothing to do with burning down a forest.

With the no tolerance laws that have passed recently and the removal of common sense in making decisions. This could be a case of the law placing someone in danger by stating intent over common sense.

Don

Ken
03-09-2009, 11:37 PM
Wow. A criminal defense attorney who only posted once. (First post above.) Who'd a thunk it was possible..........

SARKY
03-10-2009, 12:49 AM
Without knowing exactly what the charges are and what he did, I really can't answer the question. Too many variables. Was he in a life threatening situation? How long had he been lost in the woods, With or without supplies (food, water and shelter)? Was exposure a factor? Any or all of these can cause a person to not think very clearly and thus make a wrong decision as to a course of action.

last one standing
03-10-2009, 01:28 AM
KEEP YOUR FIRE UNDER CONTROL I want places to hunt and take the kid that don't look like bomb went off

crashdive123
03-10-2009, 07:05 AM
Looking at the date of the original post.....I think the trial is over. I for one would not want a criminal defense attorney that is trying to save my bacon for burning down thousands of acres of California to find an expert by annoymously posting to an internet forum. What's next - Secret Decoder Ring?

Ken
03-10-2009, 09:16 AM
Looking at the date of the original post.....I think the trial is over. I for one would not want a criminal defense attorney that is trying to save my bacon for burning down thousands of acres of California to find an expert by annoymously posting to an internet forum. What's next - Secret Decoder Ring?

I started to do a search to try to find the outcome of that "high profile" case last night. The need for sleep overcame my need to know.

Sometimes lawyers are forced to employ novel defenses which, in some cases, are actualy valid defenses. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If the law is on your side, argue the law. If you have nothing going for you, employ a unique defense or, as a last resort, settle (civil) or plea bargain (criminal).

There are a few great services out there that hook us up with outstanding expert witnesses. I've used such services to make contact with physicians, DNA experts, ballisticians, metallurgists, and economists, to name a few. Just the service alone is pricey, but you get what you pay for.

Ken
03-10-2009, 09:38 AM
I found this on the web:

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=4833235

and this:

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:g_i92mL5fzgJ:www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-5022.pdf+california+signal+fire+trial&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

and lastly, this:


"Dear Judge,

We the undersigned do not agree with what is being imposed on Patrick Courtney. We believe that any person, whomever they may be, has a right to survival. I've included details of the case as well as links to factual information, so those who are signing know the facts. We ask that this petition be taken seriously and most importantly keep in mind that each and every one of these people are putting their self in his shoes.

It should be kept in mind that this case will set a precedent in the State of California. This will prevent others from wanting to survive, when lost in the forest, because they will think that they will occur charges. A person has a right to defend one’s own life against animals, the cold, and a right to be found when lost!

Patrick's Story:

Patrick ,my fiancée, committed a crime when he was 18 years old, and now he is having it used against him at 31 and in Feb he will be 32. The crime at 18 has nothing to do with the charges he faces now. However, it's being brought up against him, even though there is no arson charges involved in his past conviction.

On September 2006, Labor day, he was lost in the forest for 24 hours, and when he was found they sent him home/ with his lighter. Two days later [while there was fires going all week long] they send a plane up and it crashes.

The NTSB concluded its investigation into the crash as pilot error.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

"the pilot's failure to maintain adequate terrain clearance while maneuvering over rising terrain in a box canyon. Also causal was the pilot's failure to adhere to procedures/directives regarding minimum altitude requirements."
Source for this information is:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060916X01351&key=1

On that site there is also a full narrative report into the crash! This is public record and these links were in the paper, for all to go see!

However, Patrick was charged three months after the crash with aggravated Arson and Two counts of First Degree murder. Those charges have since been downgraded to unlawful fire and 2nd degree murder. They claim they can charge him with murder because of the California Felony Murder rule. Because he had a warming fire- which a judge said he clearly showed effort to put out- they said the plane wouldn't had been up there in the first place.

Patrick had a warming fire and admitted this to them. He said, he was cold, scared of animals, and thought that this might signal someone. Because Patrick was previously convicted of something when he was 18, he is now 31, they have been completely biased. They have not pursued anyone else for this, and keep in mind it was Labor day weekend. There were so many people there that day, we had no place to park! There has been violation after violation. It started shortly after his arrest which, was three months after the crash, they recorded his conversation with his attorney. The lead investigator on their side heard the whole conversation. The judge ordered this to be turned over to his attorney however, imposed no further sanctions. Then, there was the revelation of evidence, that was so conveniently withheld from his preliminary hearing. They found a intact bottle of Vodka and a gun with dispersed bullets. this was found within days of the crash..... The next violation was, on the eve of trial the prosecution turns over 2,000 pages of evidence, forcing postponement. The next one was the other lead investigators footnotes were turned over 6 months after the judge threatened sanctions about discovery. Not to mention, they asked him to take a polygraph during an interview then, during this process has denied this. He has been incarcerated since November 17, 2006 and still has not been to trial

However, because of his past conviction they want to strike him out, with the Three Strikes Law. If convicted he is looking at 150 years in prison- for being lost in the forest!

Judge reduces charges"

klkak
03-10-2009, 12:28 PM
I must be missing something. Why is he on trial?

Ken
03-10-2009, 01:28 PM
I must be missing something. Why is he on trial?

Trial happened a couple of years back. He was convicted.

Guy started a fire somewhere in California. A plane with fire spotters was directing firefighters to the location. Plane crashed. Pilots died. Government claimed fire was arson. Arson is a felony, and if a felony reasonably results in someone's death, the death is considered murder. (Felony Murder Rule) So, guy was charged with murder.

His defense was that the fire wasn't arson. Fire was necessary as a signal because he was lost and in a survival situation. Bull****!

wildography
03-10-2009, 02:24 PM
You might also consider talking to a leader/member of a rural SAR (search and rescue) team. I'd specifically recommend the Yosemite SAR team, because I worked with them a bit and know how they operate.

Members of Yosemite's SAR team have died during SAR operations... its something that happens. Your client MAY be guilty of negligence, or some other lesser charge... I don't think he should be found guilty of an "UNLAWFUL" fire, either. I wouldn't think he could (or should) be found guilty of any level of arson...

unless, of course, he was an idiot and set the whole dang forest on fire just to attract attention... there are common sense ways to build a signal fire without catching the whole forest on fire. So, if he was an idiot... yeah, maybe he deserved to be convicted. But if he controlled the fire... no way.

HOWEVER, according to the above post it was just a "warming" fire that he tried to put out... that doesn't sound like he was trying to burn down the whole forest to attract attention so he could get rescued