Cruising Web Sites?
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 11:52:06 -0500, WaIIy wrote:

On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 22:59:33 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:39:14 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

The trial is set for Dec 2nd. I shall appraise the group as to the
results of the litigation.

===

So how did things go?

Maybe he doesn't have computer access from the chain gang.

Or maybe too busy working on his appeal.

--Vic



Oh ye of little faith. When I claim to be brilliant you'd best believe
it, sir. Pro se representation works just fine and doesn't cost a dime
if one has a brilliant legal mind - actually, mostly a brilliant mind
that understands the English language and word definitions and knows how
laws are written from general to specific. It's a matter of using logic
as much as anything else. A judge can be biased but even the most biased
of judges cannot argue against logic when confronted with it in the
context of statutes.

Wilbur Hubbard

Wilbur Hubbard

NOT GUILTY!!!
 

what is the actual text of the two provisions of fla law in
question?

what is the federal legislation or regulation or caselaw that
you say defines a vessel in a way you apparently imply you would argue
preempts state law?


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

On Sat, 3 Dec 2011 14:22:24 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:39:14 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

The trial is set for Dec 2nd. I shall appraise the group as to the
results of the litigation.
===
So how did things go?


NOT GUILTY!!!! I'm going to get a transcript from the clerk of the
court and plan to post it soon.

The FWC came to court and said they had charged me under the wrong
paragraph. Instead of paragraph (1) they wanted to change it to
paragraph (2) the one that gives the requirements for a houseboat.

The judge asked me if I'd like a continuance. I said I was prepared to
defend against paragraph (2) charges.

I finally convinced the court that my vessel did not meet the statutory
definition of houseboat {paragraph (2)} after considerable wrangling.
The judge was obviously on the side of the state as he even had somebody
bring him a dictionary so he could look up the word, "preclusion". Then
he tried to construe the meaning of "transportation" as something more
complicated than just going out for a day sail or a week-end sail.

Then they had the nerve to go back to paragraph (1) even though the
officer said he had listed it wrong on the statute and meant paragraph
(2). The long and short of it was that I provided enough evidence that
the judge was forced to come back with a not guilty verdict. He even had
the nerve to say something along the lines of, "Officer________, I don't
like it and I'm sure you don't like it but Mr. Hubbard is in compliance
with the statutes." Then he had the nerve to suggest that perhaps the
FWC should work on getting paragraph (2) changed to eliminate the second
clause that talks about preclusionary use. IOW the FWC wants to define a
houseboat as any vessel on which somebody lives more than 21 days in a
month's period.

They are going to have little joy with this as federal law defines a
vessel and has only allowed Florida to regulate houseboats because the
definition of a houseboat is NOT that of a vessel as a houseboat has
conditions that preclude it's use as transportation.

The FWS and courts are against boaters. It's patently obvious to this
sailor.

Will be getting a copy of the trial transcript and will post it soon as
it might be fascinating to interested boaters.

Wilbur Hubbard

NOT GUILTY!!!
 

"james ferraday" wrote in message
...

what is the actual text of the two provisions of fla law in
question?

what is the federal legislation or regulation or caselaw that
you say defines a vessel in a way you apparently imply you would argue
preempts state law?


I don't reply to top-posters other than to tell them to stop it. It's
rude and not in compliance with accepted Usenet etiquette.

Wilbur Hubbard

NOT GUILTY!!!
 

On Sat, 3 Dec 2011 14:22:24 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

Congratulations. FWC has been over stepping for a long time.

Will be getting a copy of the trial transcript and will post it soon as
it might be fascinating to interested boaters.

Please do, along with the docket #, etc.

NOT GUILTY!!!
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Dec 2011 14:22:24 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

Congratulations. FWC has been over stepping for a long time.

Will be getting a copy of the trial transcript and will post it soon
as
it might be fascinating to interested boaters.

Please do, along with the docket #, etc.




Thanks! I trust the docket #, case # etc. will be on the official court
transcript. What amazes me is the speed at which the clerk of the court
can transcribe. I'll go to the clerk's office early this week and
request a copy of the transcript. I'm hoping it will be available almost
immediately but I might have to wait for it to be mailed to me. . .

Wilbur Hubbard

Cruising Web Sites?
 

On Sat, 3 Dec 2011 15:02:00 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 11:52:06 -0500, WaIIy wrote:

On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 22:59:33 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:39:14 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

The trial is set for Dec 2nd. I shall appraise the group as to the
results of the litigation.

===

So how did things go?

Maybe he doesn't have computer access from the chain gang.

Or maybe too busy working on his appeal.

--Vic



Oh ye of little faith. When I claim to be brilliant you'd best believe
it, sir. Pro se representation works just fine and doesn't cost a dime
if one has a brilliant legal mind - actually, mostly a brilliant mind
that understands the English language and word definitions and knows how
laws are written from general to specific. It's a matter of using logic
as much as anything else. A judge can be biased but even the most biased
of judges cannot argue against logic when confronted with it in the
context of statutes.

Wilbur Hubbard


Good for you.
Seemed bogus, and you didn't cave.

--Vic

NOT GUILTY!!!
 

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote:

I don't reply to top-posters other than to tell them to stop it. It's
rude and not in compliance with accepted Usenet etiquette.

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in email?

-mhd

NOT GUILTY!!!
 

On 2011-12-03, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 3 Dec 2011 14:22:24 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

Congratulations. FWC has been over stepping for a long time.

Will be getting a copy of the trial transcript and will post it soon as
it might be fascinating to interested boaters.

Please do, along with the docket #, etc.

For once it might be worth letting him out of the kill file.

Justin.

NOT GUILTY!!!
 

"-mhd" wrote in message
...
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote:

I don't reply to top-posters other than to tell them to stop it. It's
rude and not in compliance with accepted Usenet etiquette.

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in email?


Right on! And it becomes more and more confusing as the thread lengthens
.. .

Wilbur Hubbard

Rocna anchors recall notice (was) Cruising Web Sites?
 

The horse' mouth, so to speak, spoke:

Hi there,

Unfortunately there are no unique identifiers on the affected anchors.
However, this issue only affected a small number of anchors made at the
start of 2010, and our expectation (and our experience) is that these
anchors have long been sold.

For further assurance, I would recommend speaking to your local chandlery
and asking them to confirm when they received their Rocna stock from our
North American distributor. If it was in 2011, then this is well outside the
affected time period.

You may also be interested to know that independent testing has confirmed
that all Rocna anchors, including those from the beginning of 2010 with
shanks that do not meet the design manufacturing specifications, do not pose
any safety concerns, still exceed industry classification proof load
strength requirements by over four times, and can withstand loads greater
over twice than that of the nominal breaking strength of the recommended G40
(high test) connecting chain. To reiterate, these anchors represent no
safety issue.

Kind regards,
Tina


Tina Kittelty
Rocna Anchors
t: +64 9 447 1961 | f: +64 9 480 9576
www.rocna.com | www.rocna.com/kb


L8R, y'all

Skip

--
Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig KI4MPC
See our galleries at www.justpickone.org/skip/gallery !
Follow us at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheFlyingPigLog
and/or http://groups.google.com/group/flyingpiglog

"Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life.
Don't be trapped by dogma - which is living with the results of other
people's thinking.
Don't let the noise of others' opinion drown out your own inner voice;
and most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition.
They somehow already know what you truly want to become.
Everything else is secondary".
- Steve Jobs