Crown Law Unaware Of Extreme Rule Violations By M Pigneguy

Clearly there was no risk of collision until the ferry manufactured the situation to appear that way,

Crown Law Unaware Of Extreme Rule Violations By M Pigneguy

Appellant’s Submissions in response to Submissions of Crown Law Mark Davies, Meredith Connell in opposition to Appeal against Conviction
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess
The Appellant (Bolton) seeks to respond to the Crown submission …
Response to Paragraph 29. Where M Pigneyguy & Barry Young’s erroneous evidence is used to suggest a closer quarters than 50 to 80 mtrs occurred – a further insight is to be considered…. (including the estimate of 2 boat lengths, ie 44 mtrs, made on Page 28 of the Interview by Ian Howden, and the estimate of 50-80 mtrs made by the Harbour Master’s officers) As far as Classique experienced, there had been no incident at all on the day as the ferry’s safe passing astern was acknowledged with a wave from both the Appellant & crew – it was not until the Appellant was notified in a call from the harbour master’s office the next week after the ferry’s claim was made.
(a) If the ferry had been at all concerned as to its approach, it was obligated to have let Classique know by sounding the mandatory signals, at the appropriate time and distance, with complying equipment. As the ferry had made no audible or visual indication of concern, Classique was entitled to believe there was no incident. (Visual indication includes optional light signals.) There was no observable slowing of the ferry. It definitely didn’t stop, give three short blasts to indicate use of stern propulsion or even look as if it was in the process of stopping.)
(b) Clearly there was no risk of collision until the ferry manufactured the situation to appear that way, therefore there was no obligation for Classique to keep out of the way of a rogue maneuver by the ferry – that would only be if Classique is required to take last minute collision avoidance action for her own safety. It is submitted by the Appellant that M Pigneyguy can not take any credit for saying his actions played any part in reducing the potential of the alleged incident – rather, it appears that his actions created the situation as a pedantic demonstration for trainee Phillip Sweetman, of how to use a camera & collaborate prior to filing a claim against ignorant recreational boaters – (noted in Claim filed by M Pigneyguy, his Addendum and Trans Pages 71,72)
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess

M Pigneguy didn’t keep his nose clean & his violations were disregarded
Crown Law Unaware Of Extreme Rule Violations By M Pigneguy

Crown Law Unaware Of Extreme Rule Violations By M Pigneguy

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