Judge shocked at biker's bridge stunt - The Mormon's Bridge Video

[Cr1MiNaL]

Mate I wish Unfortunately Carver does't qualify for aid firstly he earns too much and secondly the offence is't sufficently serious to warrent a grant of aid. Caver for better for worse is part of our Kiwi biker community in Hamilton that coupled with the "Notoriety" make it worth while having him as a "pro bona" client. I have had publicity that "Money can't buy"
I must confes that i am a little sentistive. We do that best for our clients whether paid or not . I do not appreciate being called a "cock" by those who think they know but don't. Nor do I appreciate the suggestion that everthing we do ias lawyers is "for money"
As I have said earlier when this matter is disposed I have Carver's permission to post a full report including the outcome and the thinking that went into hows and whys of our approach in this matter.

Mate do not agonise over the overly opinionated slander of the kiwibiker masses. You know your job better than anyone else here snd YOU know that. Try and not nibble on the bait - although tasty it bites back I hate to see professionals get involved in silly banter. it just goes to show the class some members display - members who will draw no lines as to what is acceptable remittance from real life to cyber-space.

[Latte]

If jim is doing "Pro Bona" work, whats happening to the carver defense fund? Planning an attack on the Harbour Bridge ??

[FJRider]

If jim is doing "Pro Bona" work, whats happening to the carver defense fund? Planning an attack on the Harbour Bridge ??

did he get enough for a 24 pack to celebrate his ... ( win/loss ) ??????

[Toaster]

you dont have to have the bit of paper. we did a shop lifter course at work, and to tresspass, all we had to do was say to them "you are tresspassed for 2 years" and if they respond in anyway [even a fuck off will do] then the tresspass stands. course, the paper is ideal cos then you [hopefully] have their [real] name.

Yes that is right, you dont need a notice but if a return requires police intervention then you have a paper trail to help prove that the person was in fact trespassed in the first place. Takes away reasonable doubt.

[Pixie]

Carver committed contempt of cottonwool and attempted breach of bubblewrap,and in today's New Zealand deserves to feel the full force of the law.

Next we will be seeing youngsters leaping off bridges restrained by mere elastic bands.Leading to enormous incomes and the boosting of the French economy.

[Pixie]

Therefore, if it wasn't a public place, then he needed to gain permission to access the area, like bridge maintenance gangs. So he is also screwed for trespass.
The situation could get worse for him if he doesn't pull his head in, admit fault and end the situation. His lawyer must be a bit of a cock.

He's not charged with trespass,is he?The Police Prosecutor must be a cock.

[Pixie]

There is a very thin line between courage and stupidity, and there are a lot of stupid people out there willing to have a go at summat like this.

This is a good thing.Too much of today's life attached to a box is circumventing nature's "survival of the fittest."

[JimO]

He's not charged with trespass,is he?The Police Prosecutor must be a cock.

if he is he isnt the only one in this saga

[mister.koz]

I reckon that the judge is pre-determining the outcome which is pretty screwed up. I know of plenty of people who as a hamltonian right of passage walked over the humps of the bridge, a few who have taken BMX's over it and one guy (with serious stones) who did it on a skateboard. Doesn't make it right but as people say, its not a public road. Pissed idiots at 4am on a sunday (with pub traffic) are more of a risk than a sober dude on a trials bike who has some experience in trick riding on it, so where's the examples made of the drunken idiots? Pretty much nowhere, they leave that up to Darwin.

Jim; How is it in anyway fair (asuming the law is based on fairness) to make an example of someone in the eyes of the law? i have heard this before with regards to other court cases, it sounds like the judge is voulenterring that this punishment is higher than it would normally be while at the same time advertising the fact?

I wonder if the cops have found my car stereo yet and whether this judge would make an example of the dropkicks that stole it (and about 40 others that night)...

[trustme]

I reckon that the judge is pre-determining the outcome which is pretty screwed up. I know of plenty of people who as a hamltonian right of passage walked over the humps of the bridge, a few who have taken BMX's over it and one guy (with serious stones) who did it on a skateboard. Doesn't make it right but as people say, its not a public road. Pissed idiots at 4am on a sunday (with pub traffic) are more of a risk than a sober dude on a trials bike who has some experience in trick riding on it, so where's the examples made of the drunken idiots? Pretty much nowhere, they leave that up to Darwin.

Jim; How is it in anyway fair (asuming the law is based on fairness) to make an example of someone in the eyes of the law? i have heard this before with regards to other court cases, it sounds like the judge is voulenterring that this punishment is higher than it would normally be while at the same time advertising the fact?

I wonder if the cops have found my car stereo yet and whether this judge would make an example of the dropkicks that stole it (and about 40 others that night)...

Slight difference between the pissed idiots & Carver.
The pissed idiots don't seek a legal opinion before doing it.
They do it on the spur of the moment without planning or intent
They do not promote the stunt on youtube afterwards
They do not rub the stunt in the noses of the coppers or the courts.
If they are dumb enough to get caught I suspect they also would be charged

Seems to me Carver intentionally & with preplanning tried to make a monkey of the cops & the courts. The cops & the courts are doing their very best to return the favour with interest & will be doing their best to make sure a technicality does not get in the way.

[STJim]

I reckon that the judge is pre-determining the outcome which is pretty screwed up. I know of plenty of people who as a hamltonian right of passage walked over the humps of the bridge, a few who have taken BMX's over it and one guy (with serious stones) who did it on a skateboard. Doesn't make it right but as people say, its not a public road. Pissed idiots at 4am on a sunday (with pub traffic) are more of a risk than a sober dude on a trials bike who has some experience in trick riding on it, so where's the examples made of the drunken idiots? Pretty much nowhere, they leave that up to Darwin.

Jim; How is it in anyway fair (asuming the law is based on fairness) to make an example of someone in the eyes of the law? i have heard this before with regards to other court cases, it sounds like the judge is voulenterring that this punishment is higher than it would normally be while at the same time advertising the fact?

I wonder if the cops have found my car stereo yet and whether this judge would make an example of the dropkicks that stole it (and about 40 others that night)...

I have said earlier that full comment will be made after this matter is disposed of. At this stage I cannot comment on the merits. At no stage at all am I able to make any comment about the District Court Judge

[STJim]

Slight difference between the pissed idiots & Carver.
The pissed idiots don't seek a legal opinion before doing it.
They do it on the spur of the moment without planning or intent
They do not promote the stunt on youtube afterwards
They do not rub the stunt in the noses of the coppers or the courts.
If they are dumb enough to get caught I suspect they also would be charged

Seems to me Carver intentionally & with preplanning tried to make a monkey of the cops & the courts. The cops & the courts are doing their very best to return the favour with interest & will be doing their best to make sure a technicality does not get in the way.

There is nothing that the drunk idots can be charged with. For the record to my knowedge no legal opinion was sought.

[trustme]

I stand corrected , I based that comment upon previous posts that suggested that Carver had a fair idea of his defence prior to pulling the stunt & that it would be difficult to make a charge stick, that tends to suggest some research was done or did he make a lucky guess.

Don't they charge people with drunk & disorderly anymore ?

[sidecar bob]

I wonder if the cops have found my car stereo yet and whether this judge would make an example of the dropkicks that stole it (and about 40 others that night)...

In all fairness to the cops, their job would have been made considerably easier if the theives had filmed themselves stealing them & posted it on youtube & then bragged about it on Kiwi Thief website.

[Quasievil]

In all fairness to the cops, their job would have been made considerably easier if the theives had filmed themselves stealing them & posted it on youtube & then bragged about it on Kiwi Thief website.

thats what I find funny.........Carver has Always waved a red flag in the face of the law, to then do the bridge stunt and post n brag (look at me everybody !!) to only get caught I find fucking hilarious.

Go the cops !!