"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:07:40 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

I am basing my conclusion more on my knowledge of how corrupt most police
departments these days are.

Guess you didn't notice that the jury (or the judge trying the case) who
heard all of the witnesses and whose job it was to decide who was telling
the truth found beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the insurance
company's insured that was at fault. You got a jaywalking ticket once, and
you're never gonna believe any cop again.

All I want from you is an admission that you were completely wrong with
respect to this case when it gets overturned upon appeal. It's VERY obvious
that it's an attempted railroad job by the local authorities looking after
one of their own. When it gets out of the local jurisdiction things will be
looked at objectively and justice will be done. The guy is clearly not to
blame sitting there at the helm of that sailboat going all of five miles an
hour being struck from behind by a speed boat driving recklessly and at way
too high a speed for the visibility. The cop broke any number of COLREG
rules. The ONLY rule the sailboat owner (note I said owner and not helmsman)
may have broken is not having his nav lights turned on but there were
witnesses ashore that said they WERE turned on. I even question the validity
of the breath test results for the helmsman as he didn't have enough to
drink to get those results. Could it be that they rigged the breath tester
and that's why they didn't want to use it on the cop? Very possible.

You tell me how a speed boat can strike a sailboat from behind in such a way
that it carried its
way forward and sheered the mast off can not be overtaking.

You tell me why the cop wasn't given a breath test on the spot like the
helmsman of the sailboat.

You tell me why the cop's blood test was totally mishandled with NO chain of
custody. It could be anybody's blood that got sent to the lab. Give me a
break. I wasn't born yesterday.

The whole thing is a farce. Take it to any impartial jury and the helmsman
will walk. Make book on it, dude! The insurance company is smart to take it
public. They are clearly getting screwed just because they have deep
pockets. Typical lawyer-approved/crooked local politics smarmy tricks.

Wilbur Hubbard

Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:07:40 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

I am basing my conclusion more on my knowledge of how corrupt most police
departments these days are.
Guess you didn't notice that the jury (or the judge trying the case) who
heard all of the witnesses and whose job it was to decide who was telling
the truth found beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the insurance
company's insured that was at fault. You got a jaywalking ticket once, and
you're never gonna believe any cop again.

All I want from you is an admission that you were completely wrong with
respect to this case when it gets overturned upon appeal. It's VERY obvious
that it's an attempted railroad job by the local authorities looking after
one of their own. When it gets out of the local jurisdiction things will be
looked at objectively and justice will be done. The guy is clearly not to
blame sitting there at the helm of that sailboat going all of five miles an
hour being struck from behind by a speed boat driving recklessly and at way
too high a speed for the visibility. The cop broke any number of COLREG
rules. The ONLY rule the sailboat owner (note I said owner and not helmsman)
may have broken is not having his nav lights turned on but there were
witnesses ashore that said they WERE turned on. I even question the validity
of the breath test results for the helmsman as he didn't have enough to
drink to get those results. Could it be that they rigged the breath tester
and that's why they didn't want to use it on the cop? Very possible.

You tell me how a speed boat can strike a sailboat from behind in such a way
that it carried its
way forward and sheered the mast off can not be overtaking.

You tell me why the cop wasn't given a breath test on the spot like the
helmsman of the sailboat.

You tell me why the cop's blood test was totally mishandled with NO chain of
custody. It could be anybody's blood that got sent to the lab. Give me a
break. I wasn't born yesterday.

The whole thing is a farce. Take it to any impartial jury and the helmsman
will walk. Make book on it, dude! The insurance company is smart to take it
public. They are clearly getting screwed just because they have deep
pockets. Typical lawyer-approved/crooked local politics smarmy tricks.

Wilbur Hubbard



Actually, Wilbur, it's even worse than what you said. The sailboat was
going nowhere near 5 mph. It was in drifting conditions.


--AG

"Dave" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:43:47 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

I even question the validity
of the breath test results for the helmsman as he didn't have enough to
drink to get those results. Could it be that they rigged the breath tester
and that's why they didn't want to use it on the cop? Very possible.

Could it be that he lied about how much he had to drink? Nah, couldn't be.
Much more likely the test was rigged.


[snip]


Take it to any impartial jury and the helmsman
will walk. Make book on it, dude!

Um...Neal, the trial is over. The jury has spoken. Your hero lost. Beyond
a
reasonable doubt.


Duh! Ever hear of the appeals process? The guy would be an idiot not to
appeal it all the way to the SCOTUS.

Wilbur Hubbard

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:01:52 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

Take it to any impartial jury and the helmsman
will walk. Make book on it, dude!

Um...Neal, the trial is over. The jury has spoken. Your hero lost.
Beyond
a
reasonable doubt.


Duh! Ever hear of the appeals process? The guy would be an idiot not to
appeal it all the way to the SCOTUS

Where in the court of appeals do I find the jury, Neal? You do know what a
jury is, don't you?


Duh! An appeals judge can (and should) nullify the result and send it back
down for re-trial. They jury obviously made a gross error in judgment. It
happens as juries are as stupid as a box of rocks these days.

Wilbur Hubbard

Dave wrote:
So the sail boat's insurance company doesn't like its chances of winning the
case in court, and wants to try it in the press instead. Why am I not
surprised?

Dave, do you really think the sailboat skipper had *ANY* culpability
in this accident?

A becalmed sailboat being run over by a powerboat going 40+ knots is
really not a case of remotely "equal blame" much less 100% the
sailboat's fault. The fact that the powerboater was a sheriff's deputy
who was not given a breathalyzer or blood test; and evidence of
ColRegs deemed inadmissable, and evidence on the sailboat's lights
being rejected by the DA (who is a freind of the deputy)... the whole
situation reeks.

DSK

On 18 Aug 2008 09:13:09 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 11:03:14 -0700 (PDT), said:

Dave, do you really think the sailboat skipper had *ANY* culpability
in this accident?

I don't really know, and neither do you. What you've seen as extensive
coverage flogging one side's own version of the evidence. I've on many
occasions read one side's brief and decided it looks like a slam dunk in
that side's favor, only to reach a different conclusion after reading the
other side's. And I've done enough advocacy pieces myself to know that even
the weakest case can be made to look good with a bit of creativity and
effort.

I think any reasonable person has to think it sounds like it was taken
directly from the script of any random B movie centered around a
corrupt redneck sherriff's department.

Your professional background could easily lead you astray. I think it
has in this case. Surely with your resources, you can come up with the
transcript of the trial and prove us all wrong?

wrote in message
news
On 18 Aug 2008 09:13:09 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 11:03:14 -0700 (PDT), said:

Dave, do you really think the sailboat skipper had *ANY* culpability
in this accident?

I don't really know, and neither do you. What you've seen as extensive
coverage flogging one side's own version of the evidence. I've on many
occasions read one side's brief and decided it looks like a slam dunk in
that side's favor, only to reach a different conclusion after reading the
other side's. And I've done enough advocacy pieces myself to know that
even
the weakest case can be made to look good with a bit of creativity and
effort.

I think any reasonable person has to think it sounds like it was taken
directly from the script of any random B movie centered around a
corrupt redneck sherriff's department.

Your professional background could easily lead you astray. I think it
has in this case. Surely with your resources, you can come up with the
transcript of the trial and prove us all wrong?


It is very clear that Dave sides with the authorities every time. He is a
paid lackey for the advocacy of increased government power at any cost, by
any method.

All it takes is one look at the photographic evidence for ANY unbiased
person to conclude that the sailboat got run over from behind by a
criminally careless operator of a high speed motor boat.

It doesn't matter who was at the helm of the sailboat, it doesn't matter
whether the helmsman was drunk or sober, black or white, male or female,
sighted or blind, paralyzed or able-bodied. None of that would have made one
iota of difference.

Any sane man or woman can easily conclude the cause of the death and injury
aboard the sailboat was the direct result of the actions of the helmsman of
the motorboat. Nothing Dave can say changes these facts. The jury returned
an incorrect decision based primarily upon law enforcement and the courts
denying true due process by eliminating or manipulating certain vital
evidence. This is all clear and one does not have to, like Dave, resort to
the old saw that the jury got to see the faces of those who testified. Faces
lie. The O.J. Simpson jury is a prime example of what happens when a jury is
pathetically ignorant and biased, when the prosecution is crooked as hell
and when the defense is clearly inept. This case is just more of the same
and a prime example of how corrupt lawyers and courts have become of late.

Wilbur Hubbard

On 18 Aug 2008 10:26:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:35:22 -0400, said:

Your professional background could easily lead you astray. I think it
has in this case. Surely with your resources, you can come up with the
transcript of the trial and prove us all wrong?

It ain't worth the effort.

cop out.

wrote in message
...
On 18 Aug 2008 10:26:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:35:22 -0400, said:

Your professional background could easily lead you astray. I think it
has in this case. Surely with your resources, you can come up with the
transcript of the trial and prove us all wrong?

It ain't worth the effort.

cop out.

He's clearly afraid to open his eyes and his mind as he just might decide he
should change it. . .

Wilbur Hubbard

On 18 Aug 2008 13:10:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:04:03 -0400, said:

Your professional background could easily lead you astray. I think it
has in this case. Surely with your resources, you can come up with the
transcript of the trial and prove us all wrong?

It ain't worth the effort.

cop out.

Hey, you wanna pay my outrageous rates for getting the case number, locating
a service company to go over to the court house, find the entire transcript
(if there is one) and photocopy it, and then reviewing it, just let me know
and I'll send you a retainer letter.

Sometimes people will spend a whole day that they could spend doing
something else, doing something for someone just to try and be
helpful. I guess you aren't one of those people.