Crescendo In Barry Young’s Dishonest Brief of Evidence

Barry Young denies what is - Relevant to the central issue in this case in fact, the prime cause

Crescendo In Barry Young’s Dishonest Brief of Evidence
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess
Barry Young reaches his crescendo in dishonest portrayal of the close quarters incident created by M Pigneguy to entrap & wrong Bolton.
He writes – “Considerable effort has been made to establish whether Seaway kept its course or whether it drifted to starboard during the incident. However, this is not relevant to the central issue in this case & in my opinion, this matter is in fact a distraction from the prime cause of the incident which was that Mr Bolton failed to take early & substantial action to give way to a vessel on his starboard bow in a crossing situation as required by Part 22.15 & Part 22.16.”
Analysis of this spiel written to mislead an unwitting Judge Davis
1: Because Barry Young had reluctantly had to admit that Seaway had turned towards the path of Classique, he now tries to excuse it.
2: He calls it “drift” for about the 4th time as if to repeat an untruth makes it any better – drift didn’t happen in those flat & current-less conditions.
3: Seaway obviously didn’t keep its course of either its earlier 284* or 286* neither did Seaway keep its course according to its normal regular run by turning to Auckland after Browns Island.
4: It would be up to M Pigneguy to have checked his course & rectified any alteration but neither he nor trainee watchman Phillip Sweetman did so
5: Barry Young appears to deliberately pervert the course of Justice by writing off this major violation of Maritime Rule 22.17 by M Pigneguy if he wants to regard Seaway as a stand-on vessel in a crossing with risk of collision.
6: The prime & central cause of the issue in this case is that Seaway did turn towards the path of Classique – It is certainly not just a distraction
7: This was initially, not a crossing with risk of collision as in Rule 22.15
8: It was not required that Bolton should be obliged to take any action earlier or substantial to rectify the violation M Pigneguy was perpetrating by steering towards the path of Classique.
9: If M Pigneguy’s action was inadvertent, it is in the realms of possibility that between he & Phillip Sweetman their steering off course could have been discovered & Seaway could’ve been brought back to 284* or 286*
10: Rule 22.16 didn’t apply as Seaway was steering negligently to change the category of approach but a messy situation would’ve eventuated if Bolton had acted prematurely in turning to starboard & jeopardizing Seaway’s turning to port in an attempt to get back to its former course.
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess

Barry Young denies what is – Relevant to the central issue in this case in fact, the prime cause
Crescendo In Barry Young's Dishonest Brief of Evidence,Crescendo2

Crescendo In Barry Young’s Dishonest Brief of 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