How Low Can Barry Young Go In Compiling His Evidence?

Would Barry Young have acted as he did if he wasn’t paid to?

How Low Can Barry Young Go In Compiling His Evidence?
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess
In his unprofessional & biased Brief of Evidence chapter – ‘Actions for give-way vessel’, this propaganda for his cause as Hired gun for Maritime New Zealand was written to mislead Judge Davis – “Part 22 states that when crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on its own starboard side must keep out of the way. In this incident Classique was clearly the give-way vessel because Seaway was on Classique’s starboard bow. Part 22.16 requires the give-way vessel to take early & substantial action to keep well clear & to avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel.”
Barry Young in his role as Hired gun has jumped the gun in entitling his chapter as “Actions for a Give-way vessel” & then saying Classique is such, when Classique was not in fact a Give-way vessel, & would not have been convicted as such if it hadn’t been for the dishonest evidence of Barry Young.
1: It’s perhaps educational to quote Rule 22 & Rule 22.16 but to state that it applies clearly to Classique, is only in line with Barry Young’s intention to misconstrue the facts of the case for his own benefit.
2: Barry Young has deliberately classified the crossing as having risk of collision when until the negligence of M Pigneguy’s steering made it look that way, a crossing was not necessary at all for one thing & secondly it could’ve been a crossing with no risk of collision
3: Just because Classique had Seaway on her starboard bow does not make Classique a give-way vessel & Barry Young misleads Judge Davis purposely on that point – distance comes into it.
4: Furthermore Seaway is not entitled to change the category of approach & then invoke the crossing Rule by his own negligence.
5: Seaway was on a reciprocal or parallel course with Classique until Seaway turned towards Classique at Sth Motuihe. At that point Seaway changed the category of approach.
6: There were more than 2 nmiles separating Seaway from Classique at that point & Classique was on her passage across the channel to SW Motuihe before Seaway turned towards her.
7: It’s stupid to say that because Classique had Seaway on her starboard side she is a give-way vessel. Seaway was on Classique’s starboard bow before Seaway turned at Sth Motuihe & just because Seaway turns towards Classique at Sth Motuihe, it still doesn’t make Classique a give-way vessel.
8: In fact M Pigneguy has committed a violation of Rules governing the approach of vessels to have turned towards Classique & then say Classique has to get out of his way.
9: That’s certainly nonsense when to begin with there were more than 2 nmiles separation, giving time for Classique to leave as much as 1 nmile astern of her for M Pigneguy to use as he chose.
10: It is to M Pigneguy’s detriment that he deliberately or inadvertently steered incrementally towards Classique to the extent he photographed in photo 3 after creating that clearance.
11: If M Pigneyguy had kept to his earlier course 284* or 286* Classique would’ve been seen ahead of Seaway in Photo 1 & well across to the starboard side of Seaway by Photo 2.
12: It was for Seaway to have steered a straight course at least & not impinge upon the peaceful passage of Classique which would’ve crossed safely ahead of Seaway with 460 mtrs clearance.
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess

Would Barry Young have acted as he did if he wasn’t paid to?

How Low Can Barry Young Go In Compiling His Evidence?,Stupid3

 

How Low Can Barry Young Go In Compiling His Evidence?

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