A 2nd Request From The Lawyers For Maritime New Zealand

A 2nd Request From The Lawyers For Maritime New Zealand
They wanted a clearer disclaimer distancing Maritime New Zealand from any connection with this site & they were still advising that M Pigneguy was being defamed in the posts being made here.

This response was sent –
“The disclaimer has been extended to the limit of the line space available.
Regarding the suggestion that statements might be defamatory to M Pigneguy.
As these statements are true, they would not classify as defamatory.
Confirmation should be forthcoming that he did in fact turn towards the path of Classique, inadvertently or not, causing the close quarters he complained about,
that he didn’t stop Seaway as he swore in Court,
his aerosol hooter didn’t comply with Appendix 3,
neither did he use it as required by Maritime Rules but instead took photos.
Furthermore M Pigneguy took delight in the defamation of Bolton & crew witness in his purposely misleading article in Professional Skipper Magazine
as did Maritime New Zealand in their press releases & reports after that miscarriage of Justice.
For M Pigneguy with impunity, to have abused his position with violations & perjury is of greater concern, implicating the integrity of Maritime New Zealand.
Perhaps your company operates more ethically than MNZ & Crown Law appear to.”

Other instances of M Pigneguy’s skullduggery & that of purported expert witness Barry Young didn’t get a mention – perhaps he isn’t aware of his misdeeds yet ?

Definitions of Skullduggery –
1: Paleontology – 2: Underhanded or Unscrupulous behavior
Take your pick & perhaps a shovel too.


Website Pin Facebook Twitter Myspace Friendfeed Technorati del.icio.us Digg Google StumbleUpon Premium Responsive

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge