Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

15818Re: [infoguys-list] belted - Can we just stick to the applicable law please

Expand Messages
  • suesarkis@aol.com
    Feb 7 12:30 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Why do you think that I am referring to Missouri ???? Not even close.
      That wasn't MY argument and you are barking at the wrong person.

      I would assume that in the particular area 70 was permissible as Amy never
      raised that as an issue or argument for the defense.

      My presumptive case that I addressed back in 1967 when the Corvette hit me
      happened in Miami Beach, not Missouri.

      Sue



      In a message dated 2/7/2010 12:10:43 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
      oracleintl@... writes:




      What does 1967 have to do with anything and why are we still talking
      about Missouri? I95 does not go anywhere near Missouri.

      Since Amy did not specify the location, but I told you where it
      happened, that should be a clue.

      If you want to advance some sort of slow speed argument, you might
      want to ask Amy what the speed limit actually was.

      I'll leave any further on this to you guys.

      Ciao

      Bill

      Sent from my iPhone

      On Feb 7, 2010, at 1:22 AM, _suesarkis@..._ (mailto:suesarkis@...)
      wrote:

      > Bill -
      >
      > I cannot speak for TODAY but it was quite dispositive in 1967 in
      > that if
      > the officer wrote you up for having violated a rule of the road, you
      > had to
      > post bail. I believe it was only $50 if my memory serves me
      > correctly. I
      > was shocked as the poor driver from Missouri was begging and
      > pleading with
      > them to leave me alone. He was truly a basket case.
      >
      > Common sense dictates that the facts determine the verdict
      > regardless of
      > who is in the rear. That's a no brainer. Having the case dismissed
      > without
      > my appearance showed, in my opinion, the stupidity of either the law
      > or
      > the law officer.
      >
      > However, you mentioned Miami to Jacksonville. I didn't read anything
      > whereby Amy had specified any cities or, for that matter, any
      > states. She
      > could have left from Yulee, FL having gone through all of Georgia
      > and South
      > Carolina heading for Rowland, NC and still not have traveled 350
      > miles. On
      > I-95 the speed limits vary from area to area, urban versus rural, etc.
      > However, I question your statement of, "Any local juror will know
      > that you
      > better stay in the slow lane at 70MPH on I-95 during the late night
      > hours unless
      > you want to get run over".
      >
      > I truly cannot believe that the traffic is that heavy anywhere on
      > I-95 at
      > TWO A.M. in the morning. What am I missing here ??
      >
      > By the way, was the I-95 in existence in Miami in 1967? I only
      > recall US
      > 1. Just curious.
      >
      >
      >
      > In a message dated 2/6/2010 12:40:17 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
      > _oracleintl@..._ (mailto:oracleintl@...) writes:
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > First of all, this was an I-95 collision and 70MPH on I-95 is the
      > speed
      > you travel in the slow lane, especially between Miami and Jax in the
      > middle
      > of the night, which is where this accident occurred. I cannot begin to
      > imagine why some of our other contributors are making at fault
      > determinations
      > based upon the Missouri rear-end doctrine.
      >
      > HELLLLLOOOOOOO . . . I-95 doesn't go anywhere near Missouri.
      >
      > My diligent search has found no case so much as arguing that a person
      > should not drive the speed limit in the slow lane here - but I am
      > certainly
      > aware that all things are different out there in Kookyfornia, Sue.
      > Nevertheless, this is a Florida case, so we need not be concerned
      > with the
      > Kooks and
      > how they do things.
      >
      > Presumably, this will be a local jury who each possess a drivers
      > license.
      > Any local juror will know that you better stay in the slow lane at
      > 70MPH
      > on I-95 during the late night hours unless you want to get run over -
      > that's
      > just drivers compensating for the 3-5MPH speeds during rush hour!
      >
      > Further, having read thru the 197 Florida cases that Lexis spits out
      > using
      > the search term "Rear-end collision" I can say with certainty that
      > hitting
      > someone from behind is not dispositive of guilt here in Florida.
      >
      > For those inclined to actually look at such things as statutes and
      > case
      > law, I would suggest that the case, _Eppler v. Tarmac Am._
      > (__https://www.https://www.<WBRhttps://whttps://whttps:_
      (https://www.https//wwhttps://whttps://whttps://www.) <WBRhttps://
      > www.<WBRht
      > t&docnum=d&__<WBR>fmt
      >
      (_https://www.https://wwhttps://whttps://whttps://www.<WBRhttps://www.<WBRhtt&docnum=d&_fmtstr=__
      (https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=abfcc5428d952a270fa74ab1bbd356fc&docnum=4&_fmtstr=F)
      > )
      > ULL&_startdoc=_&wchp=dGLbVzz-
      > wchp=&_md5=__md5<WBR><WBR>d836e6<WBR>d836e6_d83
      > =<WB
      > No. SC91066 , SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA, 752 So. 2d 592; 2000 Fla.
      > LEXIS
      > 90; 25 Fla. L. Weekly S 133, February 17, 2000, Decided , Rehearing
      > Denied
      > March 21, 2000. Released for Publication March 21, 2000, is a pretty
      > good
      > place to start. The quote:
      >
      > Directed verdict motion properly denied; presumption of negligence
      > by rear
      > driver was overcome by evidence of a sudden unexpected stop by the
      > forward
      > driver; allegations of abrupt, arbitrary braking should have gone to
      > jury.
      >
      > In other words, it really doesn't matter what anyone thinks, or any
      > other
      > state says - this is a Florida case, and Florida rear-end cases "go
      > to the
      > jury" on the issue of negligence. While there is a "presumption of
      > negligence" here, as virtually everywhere else, that presumption is
      > subject to
      > factual rebuttal (just like everywhere else including Missouri).
      >
      > Just as I initially said, I would be having a close look at these
      > folks to
      > see if there is any evidence that they were out there trying to
      > create an
      > accident for insurance purposes.
      >
      > BTW, Anyone who believes that the rear-end doctrine in Missouri is
      > dispositive in Missouri should take a few minutes to read the jury
      > instruction
      > (MAI 17.16). The case law there, like here, is very clear that a
      > jury can
      > find for the defendant who hits someone from the rear if the facts
      > support
      > it.
      >
      > Ciao,
      >
      > Bill E. Branscum, Investigator
      > Oracle International
      > Naples, FL 34101
      > (239) 304-1639 V
      > (239) 304-1640 F
      > (239) 641-6782 C
      > _www.FraudsAndScams _ww_http://www.FraudsAnhttp://www._
      (http://www.fraudsanhttp//www_)
      > (_http://www.fraudsanhttp://www._ (http://www.fraudsandscams.com/) ) )
      >
      > In a message dated 2/6/2010 1:54:34 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
      > __suesarkis@aol._su_ (mailto:_suesarkis@...) _
      (mailto:_suesarkis@..._ (mailto:suesarkis@...) ) writes:
      >
      > Amy -
      >
      > Based on the fact that the road traveled was a 4 lane highway, she
      > is 100%
      > in the wrong. Regardless of what was happening with the defendant's
      > vehicle, she had absolutely NO business being in the slow lane when
      > she
      > was exceeding the speed limit and nowhere near ready to exit. She
      > should
      > have
      > been in lanes 1 or 2 at that speed.
      >
      > Sincerely yours,
      > Sue
      > ____________ ____
      > Sue Sarkis
      > Sarkis Detective Agency
      >
      > (est. 1976)
      > PI 6564
      > _www.sarkispi. __http://www.sarkispihttp:_ (http://www.sarkispi.com/) )
      >
      > 1346 Ethel Street
      > Glendale, CA 91207-1826
      > 818-242-2505
      >
      > "one Nation under God" and "in GOD we TRUST"
      >
      > If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English,
      > thank a military veteran
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 5 messages in this topic