Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Fwd\:\s+anti\-climb\,\s+litigation\,\s+attractive\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Fwd: anti-climb, litigation, attractive (score: 1)
Author: Hans Hammarquist via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 23:16:42 -0500
Jim, The thing is that, according to what I read, you have to fail ALL the five point in order for some courts to find you responsible. I believe that you have to fail at least some of them. If you p
/archives//html/Towertalk/2017-02/msg00244.html (9,944 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] Fwd: anti-climb, litigation, attractive (score: 1)
Author: "Roger (K8RI) on TT" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 05:24:31 -0500
Last I heard, it depends on the jurisdiction, but from pre teens through teens, they are likely to take any measures as a challenge. In many jurisdictions, it matters not to what lengths you go, if t
/archives//html/Towertalk/2017-02/msg00245.html (11,516 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] Fwd: anti-climb, litigation, attractive (score: 1)
Author: W4AAW Mike Lonneke via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 07:10:24 -0500
No matter what you do, Judge Robarts will rule that the illegal climber has a Constitutional right to trespass and climb your tower. He will be upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. You don't h
/archives//html/Towertalk/2017-02/msg00246.html (7,554 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] Fwd: anti-climb, litigation, attractive (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 11:49:40 -0700
I suggest that if this is a concern to anyone that they should hire the appropriate legal counsel in their state. I don't believe anyone on this list has been hired to provide advice to the poster an
/archives//html/Towertalk/2017-02/msg00248.html (13,066 bytes)

5. [TowerTalk] Fwd: anti-climb, litigation, attractive (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Thomson" <jim.thom@telus.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 08:58:08 -0800
If that's the case we can take down everything we have and "close up the shop". Considering how many cell towers are unguarded I don't believe at any court would find it our responsibility to permane
/archives//html/Towertalk/2017-02/msg00310.html (8,124 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] Fwd: anti-climb, litigation, attractive (score: 1)
Author: <wa4jqs@mikrotec.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 17:20:21 -0500 (EST)
HUM I just put a 4 foot tall barbed wire fence around all my towers and hooked up weed wackers to them. also added sharpeded spikes in the ground between the fences and towers.. will have 220 volts
/archives//html/Towertalk/2017-02/msg00316.html (7,703 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] Fwd: anti-climb, litigation, attractive (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Draughn <n0ost99@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 23:43:36 +0000
Make 400 hz, that stuff wrecks the nervous system hihi. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com
/archives//html/Towertalk/2017-02/msg00317.html (9,320 bytes)

8. Re: [TowerTalk] Fwd: anti-climb, litigation, attractive (score: 1)
Author: "Roger (K8RI) on TT" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 19:00:42 -0500
That would make the parents rich! 73, Roger (K8RI) at 12-15 ft above the ground. No way to climb em without an extension ladder. Lattice type towers get the anti climb shields..and in some cases, bar
/archives//html/Towertalk/2017-02/msg00319.html (9,198 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu