What Isaid is correct and was confirmed by your post. Other than some details that I did not mention and not really gemain to the discussion.

Or was it that this did not mention navigable airspace? I don't think that is anywhere in that part. It is elsewhere in the law and possibly in the FAR's.

Also someone quoted something said from Causby VS the US. That is that one has only the right to reasonable use to his air space above his property. Often interpreted that the owner has no rights in any airspace an aircraft is using. But Ido not believe that is the case with many cases of trespassing.In factthe reasonableuse clause has been usedagainst thegovenment foraircraft flying well above minimum altitudes.Aircraft owners have been succesfully sued for noise and other damage over property. The government has had to pay damages from sonic boom for aircraft flying way above minimum altitudes. Even in Causby VS US the govenment had to pay compensation, though that may have been for air rights, not sure. Remember this was right after WWII and most were very pro military, not sure if a similar suit would fall the same way again.