"Lady Pilot" wrote in message
...

" Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." wrote:
"Lady Pilot" wrote:
Excellent! You would have made a great attorney, my dear.

LP




Yes I would have, sweetheart. Did I tell you what the verdict in my
marine sanitation device trial is?

I thought earlier that you said it was continued...

I was leading the stAUKers by their nose rings again. LOL. It's so much
fun to jerk their chain and watch their snotty noses bleed.

NOT GUILTY! Another victory for good ole Gregory. You should have
seen the FWC officer and the judge working their asses off trying to
find me guilty but they could not.

I have no doubt about the judge and FWC officer.. Congratulations, my
dear!

Thank you, honey!

The judge even called for a dictionary to look up the word
"preclusion" after I had already informed the court that it meant "to
prevent or make impossible".

Reminds me when I sued the state last year. The judge kept asking the
state what the law was...he's only been on the bench for thirty years
or so lol

Another senile liberal, lifetime judge, probably.

This after the state said they had charged me with violating the wrong
paragraph of the statute. They had charged me with violating chapter
(1) on the citation and wanted to change it to chapter (2). The judge
asked me if I wished to have a continuance. Chapter (2) is for
houseboats and the state was trying to claim my vessel was a
houseboat. \

Continuance??? Were you in state or federal court? Maritime law is
federal law, last time I looked. What kind of jurisdiction does the
state have?

In the circuit court, I think. I think that's a state court. I was cited
for violating state statute 327.53(1)
Due to federal law that takes precedence over state law, however, the
state statutes pretty much mirror federal law. I don't think a state law
officer has the authority to write citations for violating federal law.
The Coast Guard can, though. They enforce federal code when they do
safety inspections.

I replied, "Your honor, I am prepared to defend against chapter (2.)
I don't think the state expected that at all. Anyway I proved to the
satisfaction of the court that chapter (2) did not apply to my vessel
so they fell back on chapter(1) anyhow. Then I proved to the courts
satisfaction that my vessel was in full compliance which chapter (1).
So, I set some excellent precedence for other boaters who've been
similarly harassed by ignorant or overzealous officers.

Awesome, sweetie! I'm going to have to gloat Monday to one of my
admirers at school. He's a good looking dude that just retired from
the coast guard. He's been asking me to go to Starbucks after class
for about a month now.

The man obviously has great taste in women. ;-)

--
Gregory Hall




The judge told the state, "I don't like it any more than you do,
officer ________, but I'm going to rule not guilty because the way I
read it he's complied with the law."

Bravo! You definitely have bragging rights on this one! I had no
doubt that you wouldn't need my help. ;-)

LP