I'm Dangerous

**sAsLEX** · 2nd September 2006, 18:02

Originally Posted by Patrick

Still... NO IT WASN'T!!!!! AGAIN...!!! Yes, it was south of the Bombays, but that is about it...there is a whole wide piece of world south of the Bombays you know...

Was it not Taranaki?..... you are showing you idiocy by thinking my place of residence is that of my birth. Grew up between mountain and surf mate.

**Patrick** · 2nd September 2006, 18:06

Originally Posted by sAsLEX

Was it not Taranaki?..... you are showing you idiocy by thinking my place of residence is that of my birth. Grew up between mountain and surf mate.

You're showing your own idiocy... Te Kuiti Court is in the King Country... Te Kuiti HP is in the King Country too, funny enough. Perhaps its a conspiracy...

Awakino is patrolled by Te Kuiti, but Awakino is North Taranaki I suppose, but

**ZeroIndex** · 1st October 2006, 18:22

Originally Posted by CaN

Ok, I am a little confused here.

I had read it before, but did not focus attention on that, rather on the witness statement.

However the summary of "facts" is significantly at odds with the witness statement and the actual squence of events. So I guess the question is, what role does the summary of facts play in the trial?

Will take more time to type than I have right now, but I will endeavour to do this tomorrow some time.

umm.... unrelated topic: happy birthday

**scumdog** · 1st October 2006, 19:14

Originally Posted by sAsLEX

Ok to summarise:

The summary of facts is much like a film adaptation of a book, in this case the witness testimony, where the director , in this case a cop, decides which parts to embelish and which parts to leave out and also which bits to just plain make up and add to the original story. In the end you end up with nothing like the book and you feel violated after seeing the movies blasphemous attempt at representing your favourite novel......( you get bum sex from the judge).

ok to summarise: If ALL summarys were THAT different to the witness statements any half-arsed lawyer would pull the case to pieces when he saw the disclosure and noticed the inconsistencies between the two - but think what you want........

**The Stranger:Me** · 3rd October 2006, 15:39

Originally Posted by scumdog

ok to summarise: If ALL summarys were THAT different to the witness statements any half-arsed lawyer would pull the case to pieces when he saw the disclosure and noticed the inconsistencies between the two - but think what you want........

Spoke to the Lawyer, he basically advised to take the summary of facts with a grain of salt.
The inference I got was that they are unimportant when it comes to proving or disproving the case.
If so then really the contents are moot.

**The Stranger:Me** · 10th October 2006, 11:36

Originally Posted by CaN

Spoke to the Lawyer, he basically advised to take the summary of facts with a grain of salt.
The inference I got was that they are unimportant when it comes to proving or disproving the case.
If so then really the contents are moot.

Well another appearance today for a status hearing.
We requested a defended hearing.
The judge took a look at the summary of "facts" and suggested that a defended hearing was probably not necessary and that the Police may like to consider reducing the charge to careless. Initial response from the Police was no, then after a bit more discussion the judge went on to suggest careless with no loss of license which the Police then agreed to consider.
Another status hearing date is set down for 28/11/06.

The way it went down looked like he was cautioning both the Police to reduce it and me to accept it or their would be consequences. I may be wrong, but that was the impression I got.

So in conclusion,
The summary of "facts" obviously does come into play as the wording appears that the Police had 2 complainants about the incident, when there is only one and their (the complainant's) conjecture was apparently treated as fact by the judge, but hey not a bad result anyway for today.

The wheels of Justice are obviously not powered by Suzuki, a defended hearing date would not have been available until March next year, some 14 months after the incident.

**sAsLEX** · 10th October 2006, 11:56

Originally Posted by CaN

The wheels of Justice are obviously not powered by Suzuki, a defended hearing date would not have been available until March next year, some 14 months after the incident.

Moving at the speed of a stalictite

And costing you how much for what was in your eyes a simple pass which scared granny friends with the police?

**adiddy** · 10th October 2006, 17:26

mate , that sucks hard... better keep an eye on my riding - or cover up 1 letter as to not get "REOPORTED"

my mate got done for "loss of traction" the other day (SATURDAY) in a cage on a gravel road while doing a u turn in the country at 9.30pm he was on his restricted liscnece with two passengers...

So ok yes he had passengers, the loss of traction was almost impossible to avoid if he didnt wanna go 3 kilometeres up the road to find another road to turn down.

By the time the police finished with him it was 10.15 they told him his car was being impounded for loss of traction , and 400$ fine for passengers and he was lucky THAT HE WAS BEING KIND and not doing him for after
HOURS
WTF?! Justice system - (INSERT TUI AD HERE)

**scumdog** · 10th October 2006, 19:55

Originally Posted by adiddy

my mate got done for "loss of traction" the other day (SATURDAY) in a cage on a gravel road while doing a u turn in the country at 9.30pm he was on his restricted liscnece with two passengers...

So ok yes he had passengers, the loss of traction was almost impossible to avoid if he didnt wanna go 3 kilometeres up the road to find another road to turn down.

WTF?! Justice system - (INSERT TUI AD HERE)

The sustained loss of traction bit is a tad harsh - but the breach of restircted licence bit is bad-bloody-luck, he KNEW he had these passengers there when they got in.

Oh, the 'didn't wanna go 3km up the road' bit for an excuse for the skid U-turn is a bit pathetic, still ya gotta try eh?

**adiddy** · 10th October 2006, 19:59

it was the country - honestly there was nothing in it !!!!!
yes he understands about the passengers thats not the point ...
loss of traction is a load of bs it was like 0.5 seconds i was told it has to be a minimum of 3 seconds?!
plus the cop tried to say after hours considering he was questioned at 9.30 ....

**The Stranger:Me** · 1st May 2007, 11:36

Well pretty much as expected in my post 49 on the day the police reduced the charge to careless and agreed to no loss of license so I pleaded guilty to that.

They had no witness there and I doubt they were prepared for the fact that I did, but legal costs would have exceeded the fine had I proceeded and it really is a roll of the dice. Who knows, the judge may have given them some points for perseverance and I could have wound up with careless anyway.

So I got a $500.00 fine and $130.00 court costs and no doubt a lawyers bill to come, so no winners there as it wasted a lot of court and police time for something so pointless.

Thank you to those that gave me letters, the judge did note them when delivering his reprimand for my fictitious infractions.

On another note, would highly recommend the lawyer. I think I noted in a previous post that he was recommended to me by LooseBruce and has defended a couple of other KBers. Price was reasonable - way cheaper than Auckland lawyers I contacted and he is a petrol head so knows the score.

So after 15 months it is case closed.