Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#31
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#32
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#33
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#34
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#35
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#36
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#37
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#38
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#39
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#40
posted to rec.boats.cruising,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Cruising Web Sites? | General | |||
Volvo penta web sites | Cruising | |||
Too many paddling web sites... | General | |||
Too many paddling web sites | Whitewater | |||
Too many paddling web sites | UK Paddle |