Re: Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash

[Len McGoogle]

On Apr 9, 10:10*pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers! I
> guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!
>
> Mike
>
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713154/Helmet-cam-films-cyclists-clash
>
> Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash

Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helmet
cams.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Apr 10, 10:54*am, Len McGoogle > wrote:
> On Apr 9, 10:10*pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> > Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers! I
> > guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!
>
> > Mike
>
> >http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713154/Helmet-cam-films-cyclists-clash
>
> > Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash
>
> Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helmet
> cams.

Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.

[JVaughn]

On Apr 10, 8:28*pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> On Apr 10, 10:54*am, Len McGoogle > wrote:
>
> > On Apr 9, 10:10*pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> > > Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers! I
> > > guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!
>
> > > Mike
>
> > >http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713154/Helmet-cam-films-cyclists-clash
>
> > > Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash
>
> > Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helmet
> > cams.
>
> Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.

Did you, or did you not, assault a cyclist?
Were you tried in court for this?
Were you found guilty?

[Len McGoogle]

On Apr 10, 9:28*pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> On Apr 10, 10:54*am, Len McGoogle > wrote:
>
> > On Apr 9, 10:10*pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> > > Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers! I
> > > guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!
>
> > > Mike
>
> > >http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713154/Helmet-cam-films-cyclists-clash
>
> > > Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash
>
> > Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helmet
> > cams.
>
> Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.

What part of my post wasn't true?

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Apr 11, 1:20*pm, JVaughn > wrote:
> On Apr 10, 8:28*pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 10, 10:54*am, Len McGoogle > wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 9, 10:10*pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> > > > Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers! I
> > > > guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!
>
> > > > Mike
>
> > > >http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713154/Helmet-cam-films-cyclists-clash
>
> > > > Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash
>
> > > Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helmet
> > > cams.
>
> > Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.
>
> Did you, or did you not, assault a cyclist?
> Were you tried in court for this?
> Were you found guilty?

No, of course not. Can you say "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint
you.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Apr 11, 1:50*pm, Len McGoogle > wrote:
> On Apr 10, 9:28*pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 10, 10:54*am, Len McGoogle > wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 9, 10:10*pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> > > > Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers! I
> > > > guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!
>
> > > > Mike
>
> > > >http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713154/Helmet-cam-films-cyclists-clash
>
> > > > Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash
>
> > > Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helmet
> > > cams.
>
> > Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.
>
> What part of my post wasn't true?

All of it. Including your name. DUH! Not that you give a whit.

[Bob Berger[_2_]]

In article >,
Mike Vandeman says...
>
>On Apr 11, 1:20=A0pm, JVaughn > wrote:
>> On Apr 10, 8:28=A0pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 10, 10:54=A0am, Len McGoogle > wrote:
>>
>> > > On Apr 9, 10:10=A0pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>>
>> > > > Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers! I
>> > > > guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!
>>
>> > > > Mike
>>
>> > > >http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713154/Helmet-cam-films-cyclists-cl=
>ash
>>
>> > > > Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash
>>
>> > > Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helmet
>> > > cams.
>>
>> > Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.
>>
>> Did you, or did you not, assault a cyclist?
>> Were you tried in court for this?
>> Were you found guilty?
>
>No, of course not. Can you say "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint
>you.

From my 04/04/2012 post to the "Male rider suffered a serious crash" thread,
see:

>http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/mr-vandeman-is-a-very-unique-defendant/
>
>which contains in part:
>
>For vandalizing Ian Richards’ bike tire: not guilty.
>
>Since the punctured tire could not be found, this count was Richards’ word
>against Vandeman’s, leaving plenty of room for reasonable doubt. At this news,
>Vandeman moved forward and back in his seat very rapidly.
>
>For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty.
>
>In my opinion, the evidence and testimony was weakest on this charge. At one
>point Cook had argued for the charge to be thrown out since there was quite
>nearly no evidence that Richards had felt threatened. But in closing >arguments,
>Cabanero made the point that showing a weapon during a conflict is >a threat,
>intended to send a message, like Trench Coat, above. Apparently, the >argument
>stuck.
>
>For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty.
>
>For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty.
>
>The jury said that there was no evidence that Vandeman had touched Alcala, >just
>his bike.
>
>For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.

To which you replied:

>BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF COURSE,
>WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know that juries convict
>the innocent and free the guilty all the time. Sorry to disappoint
>you.

So it would seem, even by your own admission, you were tried in court and not
all the charges were dismissed. Please clarify. When you replied in part "charge
dismissed", to what were you referring?

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Apr 11, 10:24*pm, Bob Berger > wrote:
> In article >,
> Mike Vandeman says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 11, 1:20=A0pm, JVaughn > wrote:
> >> On Apr 10, 8:28=A0pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> >> > On Apr 10, 10:54=A0am, Len McGoogle > wrote:
>
> >> > > On Apr 9, 10:10=A0pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> >> > > > Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers! I
> >> > > > guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!
>
> >> > > > Mike
>
> >> > > >http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713154/Helmet-cam-films-cyclists-cl=
> >ash
>
> >> > > > Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash
>
> >> > > Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helmet
> >> > > cams.
>
> >> > Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.
>
> >> Did you, or did you not, assault a cyclist?
> >> Were you tried in court for this?
> >> Were you found guilty?
>
> >No, of course not. Can you say "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint
> >you.
>
> From my 04/04/2012 post to the "Male rider suffered a serious crash" thread,
> see:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/mr-vandeman-is-a-very-unique-defe...
>
> >which contains in part:
>
> >For vandalizing Ian Richards’ bike tire: not guilty.
>
> >Since the punctured tire could not be found, this count was Richards’ word
> >against Vandeman’s, leaving plenty of room for reasonable doubt. At this news,
> >Vandeman moved forward and back in his seat very rapidly.
>
> >For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty.
>
> >In my opinion, the evidence and testimony was weakest on this charge. At one
> >point Cook had argued for the charge to be thrown out since there was quite
> >nearly no evidence that Richards had felt threatened. But in closing >arguments,
> >Cabanero made the point that showing a weapon during a conflict is >a threat,
> >intended to send a message, like Trench Coat, above. Apparently, the >argument
> >stuck.
>
> >For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty.
>
> >For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty.
>
> >The jury said that there was no evidence that Vandeman had touched Alcala, >just
> >his bike.
>
> >For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.
>
> To which you replied:
>
> >BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF COURSE,
> >WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know that juries convict
> >the innocent and free the guilty all the time. Sorry to disappoint
> >you.
>
> So it would seem, even by your own admission, you were tried in court and not
> all the charges were dismissed. Please clarify. When you replied in part "charge
> dismissed", to what were you referring?

Assault.

[Bob Berger[_2_]]

In article >,
Mike Vandeman says...
>
>On Apr 11, 10:24=A0pm, Bob Berger > wrote:
>> In article .=
>com>,
>> Mike Vandeman says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 11, 1:20=3DA0pm, JVaughn > wrote:
>> >> On Apr 10, 8:28=3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Apr 10, 10:54=3DA0am, Len McGoogle > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On Apr 9, 10:10=3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman > wr=
>ote:
>>
>> >> > > > Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers=
>! I
>> >> > > > guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!
>>
>> >> > > > Mike
>>
>> >> > > >http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713154/Helmet-cam-films-cyclists=
>-cl=3D
>> >ash
>>
>> >> > > > Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash
>>
>> >> > > Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helm=
>et
>> >> > > cams.
>>
>> >> > Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.
>>
>> >> Did you, or did you not, assault a cyclist?
>> >> Were you tried in court for this?
>> >> Were you found guilty?
>>
>> >No, of course not. Can you say "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint
>> >you.
>>
>> From my 04/04/2012 post to the "Male rider suffered a serious crash" thre=
>ad,
>> see:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/mr-vandeman-is-a-very-unique-defe...
>>
>> >which contains in part:
>>
>> >For vandalizing Ian Richards=92 bike tire: not guilty.
>>
>> >Since the punctured tire could not be found, this count was Richards=92 =
>word
>> >against Vandeman=92s, leaving plenty of room for reasonable doubt. At th=
>is news,
>> >Vandeman moved forward and back in his seat very rapidly.
>>
>> >For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty.
>>
>> >In my opinion, the evidence and testimony was weakest on this charge. At=
> one
>> >point Cook had argued for the charge to be thrown out since there was qu=
>ite
>> >nearly no evidence that Richards had felt threatened. But in closing >ar=
>guments,
>> >Cabanero made the point that showing a weapon during a conflict is >a th=
>reat,
>> >intended to send a message, like Trench Coat, above. Apparently, the >ar=
>gument
>> >stuck.
>>
>> >For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty.
>>
>> >For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty.
>>
>> >The jury said that there was no evidence that Vandeman had touched Alcal=
>a, >just
>> >his bike.
>>
>> >For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.
>>
>> To which you replied:
>>
>> >BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF COURSE,
>> >WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know that juries convict
>> >the innocent and free the guilty all the time. Sorry to disappoint
>> >you.
>>
>> So it would seem, even by your own admission, you were tried in court and=
> not
>> all the charges were dismissed. Please clarify. When you replied in part =
>"charge
>> dismissed", to what were you referring?
>
>Assault.

Just as I thought, you were hiding behind a nitpick. You should go into
politics, or maybe even the environmental movement.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Apr 12, 11:10*am, Bob Berger > wrote:
> In article >,
> Mike Vandeman says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 11, 10:24=A0pm, Bob Berger > wrote:
> >> In article .=
> >com>,
> >> Mike Vandeman says...
>
> >> >On Apr 11, 1:20=3DA0pm, JVaughn > wrote:
> >> >> On Apr 10, 8:28=3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Apr 10, 10:54=3DA0am, Len McGoogle > wrote:
>
> >> >> > > On Apr 9, 10:10=3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman > wr=
> >ote:
>
> >> >> > > > Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers=
> >! I
> >> >> > > > guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!
>
> >> >> > > > Mike
>
> >> >> > > >http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713154/Helmet-cam-films-cyclists=
> >-cl=3D
> >> >ash
>
> >> >> > > > Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash
>
> >> >> > > Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helm=
> >et
> >> >> > > cams.
>
> >> >> > Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.
>
> >> >> Did you, or did you not, assault a cyclist?
> >> >> Were you tried in court for this?
> >> >> Were you found guilty?
>
> >> >No, of course not. Can you say "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint
> >> >you.
>
> >> From my 04/04/2012 post to the "Male rider suffered a serious crash" thre=
> >ad,
> >> see:
>
> >> >http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/mr-vandeman-is-a-very-unique-defe....
>
> >> >which contains in part:
>
> >> >For vandalizing Ian Richards=92 bike tire: not guilty.
>
> >> >Since the punctured tire could not be found, this count was Richards=92 =
> >word
> >> >against Vandeman=92s, leaving plenty of room for reasonable doubt. At th=
> >is news,
> >> >Vandeman moved forward and back in his seat very rapidly.
>
> >> >For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty.
>
> >> >In my opinion, the evidence and testimony was weakest on this charge. At=
> > one
> >> >point Cook had argued for the charge to be thrown out since there was qu=
> >ite
> >> >nearly no evidence that Richards had felt threatened. But in closing >ar=
> >guments,
> >> >Cabanero made the point that showing a weapon during a conflict is >a th=
> >reat,
> >> >intended to send a message, like Trench Coat, above. Apparently, the >ar=
> >gument
> >> >stuck.
>
> >> >For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty.
>
> >> >For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty.
>
> >> >The jury said that there was no evidence that Vandeman had touched Alcal=
> >a, >just
> >> >his bike.
>
> >> >For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.
>
> >> To which you replied:
>
> >> >BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF COURSE,
> >> >WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know that juries convict
> >> >the innocent and free the guilty all the time. Sorry to disappoint
> >> >you.
>
> >> So it would seem, even by your own admission, you were tried in court and=
> > not
> >> all the charges were dismissed. Please clarify. When you replied in part =
> >"charge
> >> dismissed", to what were you referring?
>
> >Assault.
>
> Just as I thought, you were hiding behind a nitpick. You should go into
> politics, or maybe even the environmental movement.

"Charge dismissed" is not a nitpick. It only shows what an
incorrigible liar you are. That's synonymous with "mountain biker").

[Len McGoogle]

On Apr 12, 2:10*pm, Bob Berger > wrote:
> In article >,
> Mike Vandeman says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 11, 10:24=A0pm, Bob Berger > wrote:
> >> In article .=
> >com>,
> >> Mike Vandeman says...
>
> >> >On Apr 11, 1:20=3DA0pm, JVaughn > wrote:
> >> >> On Apr 10, 8:28=3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Apr 10, 10:54=3DA0am, Len McGoogle > wrote:
>
> >> >> > > On Apr 9, 10:10=3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman > wr=
> >ote:
>
> >> >> > > > Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers=
> >! I
> >> >> > > > guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!
>
> >> >> > > > Mike
>
> >> >> > > >http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713154/Helmet-cam-films-cyclists=
> >-cl=3D
> >> >ash
>
> >> >> > > > Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash
>
> >> >> > > Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helm=
> >et
> >> >> > > cams.
>
> >> >> > Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.
>
> >> >> Did you, or did you not, assault a cyclist?
> >> >> Were you tried in court for this?
> >> >> Were you found guilty?
>
> >> >No, of course not. Can you say "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint
> >> >you.
>
> >> From my 04/04/2012 post to the "Male rider suffered a serious crash" thre=
> >ad,
> >> see:
>
> >> >http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/mr-vandeman-is-a-very-unique-defe....
>
> >> >which contains in part:
>
> >> >For vandalizing Ian Richards=92 bike tire: not guilty.
>
> >> >Since the punctured tire could not be found, this count was Richards=92 =
> >word
> >> >against Vandeman=92s, leaving plenty of room for reasonable doubt. At th=
> >is news,
> >> >Vandeman moved forward and back in his seat very rapidly.
>
> >> >For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty.
>
> >> >In my opinion, the evidence and testimony was weakest on this charge. At=
> > one
> >> >point Cook had argued for the charge to be thrown out since there was qu=
> >ite
> >> >nearly no evidence that Richards had felt threatened. But in closing >ar=
> >guments,
> >> >Cabanero made the point that showing a weapon during a conflict is >a th=
> >reat,
> >> >intended to send a message, like Trench Coat, above. Apparently, the >ar=
> >gument
> >> >stuck.
>
> >> >For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty.
>
> >> >For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty.
>
> >> >The jury said that there was no evidence that Vandeman had touched Alcal=
> >a, >just
> >> >his bike.
>
> >> >For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.
>
> >> To which you replied:
>
> >> >BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF COURSE,
> >> >WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know that juries convict
> >> >the innocent and free the guilty all the time. Sorry to disappoint
> >> >you.
>
> >> So it would seem, even by your own admission, you were tried in court and=
> > not
> >> all the charges were dismissed. Please clarify. When you replied in part =
> >"charge
> >> dismissed", to what were you referring?
>
> >Assault.
>
> Just as I thought, you were hiding behind a nitpick. You should go into
> politics, or maybe even the environmental movement.

The environmental movement doesn't want him. They prefer to distance
themselves from kooks and extremists.

[Bob Berger[_2_]]

In article >,
Mike Vandeman says...
>
>On Apr 12, 11:10=A0am, Bob Berger > wrote:
>> In article =
>.com>,
>> Mike Vandeman says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 11, 10:24=3DA0pm, Bob Berger > wrote:
>> >> In article =
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> Mike Vandeman says...
>>
>> >> >On Apr 11, 1:20=3D3DA0pm, JVaughn > wrote:
>> >> >> On Apr 10, 8:28=3D3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman > w=
>rote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Apr 10, 10:54=3D3DA0am, Len McGoogle > wro=
>te:
>>
>> >> >> > > On Apr 9, 10:10=3D3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman =
>m> wr=3D
>> >ote:
>>
>> >> >> > > > Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bik=
>ers=3D
>> >! I
>> >> >> > > > guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!
>>
>> >> >> > > > Mike
>>
>> >> >> > > >http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713154/Helmet-cam-films-cycli=
>sts=3D
>> >-cl=3D3D
>> >> >ash
>>
>> >> >> > > > Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash
>>
>> >> >> > > Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those h=
>elm=3D
>> >et
>> >> >> > > cams.
>>
>> >> >> > Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.
>>
>> >> >> Did you, or did you not, assault a cyclist?
>> >> >> Were you tried in court for this?
>> >> >> Were you found guilty?
>>
>> >> >No, of course not. Can you say "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoin=
>t
>> >> >you.
>>
>> >> From my 04/04/2012 post to the "Male rider suffered a serious crash" t=
>hre=3D
>> >ad,
>> >> see:
>>
>> >> >http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/mr-vandeman-is-a-very-unique-defe=
>...
>>
>> >> >which contains in part:
>>
>> >> >For vandalizing Ian Richards=3D92 bike tire: not guilty.
>>
>> >> >Since the punctured tire could not be found, this count was Richards=
>=3D92 =3D
>> >word
>> >> >against Vandeman=3D92s, leaving plenty of room for reasonable doubt. =
>At th=3D
>> >is news,
>> >> >Vandeman moved forward and back in his seat very rapidly.
>>
>> >> >For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty.
>>
>> >> >In my opinion, the evidence and testimony was weakest on this charge.=
> At=3D
>> > one
>> >> >point Cook had argued for the charge to be thrown out since there was=
> qu=3D
>> >ite
>> >> >nearly no evidence that Richards had felt threatened. But in closing =
>>ar=3D
>> >guments,
>> >> >Cabanero made the point that showing a weapon during a conflict is >a=
> th=3D
>> >reat,
>> >> >intended to send a message, like Trench Coat, above. Apparently, the =
>>ar=3D
>> >gument
>> >> >stuck.
>>
>> >> >For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty.
>>
>> >> >For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty.
>>
>> >> >The jury said that there was no evidence that Vandeman had touched Al=
>cal=3D
>> >a, >just
>> >> >his bike.
>>
>> >> >For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.
>>
>> >> To which you replied:
>>
>> >> >BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF COURSE,
>> >> >WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know that juries convict
>> >> >the innocent and free the guilty all the time. Sorry to disappoint
>> >> >you.
>>
>> >> So it would seem, even by your own admission, you were tried in court =
>and=3D
>> > not
>> >> all the charges were dismissed. Please clarify. When you replied in pa=
>rt =3D
>> >"charge
>> >> dismissed", to what were you referring?
>>
>> >Assault.
>>
>> Just as I thought, you were hiding behind a nitpick. You should go into
>> politics, or maybe even the environmental movement.
>
>"Charge dismissed" is not a nitpick. It only shows what an
>incorrigible liar you are. That's synonymous with "mountain biker").

Best you can do? Figures.

[Len McGoogle]

On Apr 12, 8:13*pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> On Apr 12, 11:10*am, Bob Berger > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > Mike Vandeman says...
>
> > >On Apr 11, 10:24=A0pm, Bob Berger > wrote:
> > >> In article .=
> > >com>,
> > >> Mike Vandeman says...
>
> > >> >On Apr 11, 1:20=3DA0pm, JVaughn > wrote:
> > >> >> On Apr 10, 8:28=3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> > >> >> > On Apr 10, 10:54=3DA0am, Len McGoogle > wrote:
>
> > >> >> > > On Apr 9, 10:10=3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman > wr=
> > >ote:
>
> > >> >> > > > Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers=
> > >! I
> > >> >> > > > guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!
>
> > >> >> > > > Mike
>
> > >> >> > > >http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713154/Helmet-cam-films-cyclists=
> > >-cl=3D
> > >> >ash
>
> > >> >> > > > Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash
>
> > >> >> > > Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helm=
> > >et
> > >> >> > > cams.
>
> > >> >> > Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.
>
> > >> >> Did you, or did you not, assault a cyclist?
> > >> >> Were you tried in court for this?
> > >> >> Were you found guilty?
>
> > >> >No, of course not. Can you say "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint
> > >> >you.
>
> > >> From my 04/04/2012 post to the "Male rider suffered a serious crash" thre=
> > >ad,
> > >> see:
>
> > >> >http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/mr-vandeman-is-a-very-unique-defe...
>
> > >> >which contains in part:
>
> > >> >For vandalizing Ian Richards=92 bike tire: not guilty.
>
> > >> >Since the punctured tire could not be found, this count was Richards=92 =
> > >word
> > >> >against Vandeman=92s, leaving plenty of room for reasonable doubt.. At th=
> > >is news,
> > >> >Vandeman moved forward and back in his seat very rapidly.
>
> > >> >For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty.
>
> > >> >In my opinion, the evidence and testimony was weakest on this charge. At=
> > > one
> > >> >point Cook had argued for the charge to be thrown out since there was qu=
> > >ite
> > >> >nearly no evidence that Richards had felt threatened. But in closing >ar=
> > >guments,
> > >> >Cabanero made the point that showing a weapon during a conflict is >a th=
> > >reat,
> > >> >intended to send a message, like Trench Coat, above. Apparently, the >ar=
> > >gument
> > >> >stuck.
>
> > >> >For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty.
>
> > >> >For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty.
>
> > >> >The jury said that there was no evidence that Vandeman had touched Alcal=
> > >a, >just
> > >> >his bike.
>
> > >> >For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.
>
> > >> To which you replied:
>
> > >> >BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF COURSE,
> > >> >WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know that juries convict
> > >> >the innocent and free the guilty all the time. Sorry to disappoint
> > >> >you.
>
> > >> So it would seem, even by your own admission, you were tried in court and=
> > > not
> > >> all the charges were dismissed. Please clarify. When you replied in part =
> > >"charge
> > >> dismissed", to what were you referring?
>
> > >Assault.
>
> > Just as I thought, you were hiding behind a nitpick. You should go into
> > politics, or maybe even the environmental movement.
>
> "Charge dismissed" is not a nitpick. It only shows what an
> incorrigible liar you are. That's synonymous with "mountain biker").

For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.

Battery: Causing any physical harm or injury to the victim—such as a
cut, a burn, or a bullet wound—could constitute battery, but actual
injury is not required. Even though there is no apparent bruise
following harmful contact, the defendant can still be guilty of
battery; occurrence of a physical illness subsequent to the contact
may also be actionable. The second type of contact that may constitute
battery causes no actual physical harm but is, instead, offensive or
insulting to the victim. Examples include spitting in someone's face
or offensively touching someone against his or her will.

So you either assaulted him or touched his pee-pee.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Apr 13, 10:25*am, Len McGoogle > wrote:
> On Apr 12, 8:13*pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 12, 11:10*am, Bob Berger > wrote:
>
> > > In article >,
> > > Mike Vandeman says...
>
> > > >On Apr 11, 10:24=A0pm, Bob Berger > wrote:
> > > >> In article .=
> > > >com>,
> > > >> Mike Vandeman says...
>
> > > >> >On Apr 11, 1:20=3DA0pm, JVaughn > wrote:
> > > >> >> On Apr 10, 8:28=3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> > > >> >> > On Apr 10, 10:54=3DA0am, Len McGoogle > wrote:
>
> > > >> >> > > On Apr 9, 10:10=3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman > wr=
> > > >ote:
>
> > > >> >> > > > Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers=
> > > >! I
> > > >> >> > > > guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!
>
> > > >> >> > > > Mike
>
> > > >> >> > > >http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713154/Helmet-cam-films-cyclists=
> > > >-cl=3D
> > > >> >ash
>
> > > >> >> > > > Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash
>
> > > >> >> > > Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helm=
> > > >et
> > > >> >> > > cams.
>
> > > >> >> > Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.
>
> > > >> >> Did you, or did you not, assault a cyclist?
> > > >> >> Were you tried in court for this?
> > > >> >> Were you found guilty?
>
> > > >> >No, of course not. Can you say "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint
> > > >> >you.
>
> > > >> From my 04/04/2012 post to the "Male rider suffered a serious crash" thre=
> > > >ad,
> > > >> see:
>
> > > >> >http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/mr-vandeman-is-a-very-unique-defe...
>
> > > >> >which contains in part:
>
> > > >> >For vandalizing Ian Richards=92 bike tire: not guilty.
>
> > > >> >Since the punctured tire could not be found, this count was Richards=92 =
> > > >word
> > > >> >against Vandeman=92s, leaving plenty of room for reasonable doubt. At th=
> > > >is news,
> > > >> >Vandeman moved forward and back in his seat very rapidly.
>
> > > >> >For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty.
>
> > > >> >In my opinion, the evidence and testimony was weakest on this charge. At=
> > > > one
> > > >> >point Cook had argued for the charge to be thrown out since there was qu=
> > > >ite
> > > >> >nearly no evidence that Richards had felt threatened. But in closing >ar=
> > > >guments,
> > > >> >Cabanero made the point that showing a weapon during a conflict is >a th=
> > > >reat,
> > > >> >intended to send a message, like Trench Coat, above. Apparently, the >ar=
> > > >gument
> > > >> >stuck.
>
> > > >> >For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty.
>
> > > >> >For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty.
>
> > > >> >The jury said that there was no evidence that Vandeman had touched Alcal=
> > > >a, >just
> > > >> >his bike.
>
> > > >> >For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.
>
> > > >> To which you replied:
>
> > > >> >BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF COURSE,
> > > >> >WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know that juries convict
> > > >> >the innocent and free the guilty all the time. Sorry to disappoint
> > > >> >you.
>
> > > >> So it would seem, even by your own admission, you were tried in court and=
> > > > not
> > > >> all the charges were dismissed. Please clarify. When you replied in part =
> > > >"charge
> > > >> dismissed", to what were you referring?
>
> > > >Assault.
>
> > > Just as I thought, you were hiding behind a nitpick. You should go into
> > > politics, or maybe even the environmental movement.
>
> > "Charge dismissed" is not a nitpick. It only shows what an
> > incorrigible liar you are. That's synonymous with "mountain biker").
>
> For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.
>
> Battery: Causing any physical harm or injury to the victim—such as a
> cut, a burn, or a bullet wound—could constitute battery, but actual
> injury is not required. Even though there is no apparent bruise
> following harmful contact, the defendant can still be guilty of
> battery; occurrence of a physical illness subsequent to the contact
> may also be actionable. The second type of contact that may constitute
> battery causes no actual physical harm but is, instead, offensive or
> insulting to the victim. Examples include spitting in someone's face
> or offensively touching someone against his or her will.
>
> So you either assaulted him or touched his pee-pee.

BS. He ran into me. HE is guilty of battery. Thanks for demonstrating
your utter ignorance, once again.

[JVaughn]

On Apr 16, 10:24*pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:

> BS. He ran into me. HE is guilty of battery. Thanks for demonstrating
> your utter ignorance, once again.

Is that what the court found?

[Len McGoogle]

On Apr 16, 11:24*pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> On Apr 13, 10:25*am, Len McGoogle > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 12, 8:13*pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 12, 11:10*am, Bob Berger > wrote:
>
> > > > In article >,
> > > > Mike Vandeman says...
>
> > > > >On Apr 11, 10:24=A0pm, Bob Berger > wrote:
> > > > >> In article .=
> > > > >com>,
> > > > >> Mike Vandeman says...
>
> > > > >> >On Apr 11, 1:20=3DA0pm, JVaughn > wrote:
> > > > >> >> On Apr 10, 8:28=3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> > > > >> >> > On Apr 10, 10:54=3DA0am, Len McGoogle > wrote:
>
> > > > >> >> > > On Apr 9, 10:10=3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman > wr=
> > > > >ote:
>
> > > > >> >> > > > Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers=
> > > > >! I
> > > > >> >> > > > guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!
>
> > > > >> >> > > > Mike
>
> > > > >> >> > > >http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713154/Helmet-cam-films-cyclists=
> > > > >-cl=3D
> > > > >> >ash
>
> > > > >> >> > > > Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash
>
> > > > >> >> > > Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helm=
> > > > >et
> > > > >> >> > > cams.
>
> > > > >> >> > Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.
>
> > > > >> >> Did you, or did you not, assault a cyclist?
> > > > >> >> Were you tried in court for this?
> > > > >> >> Were you found guilty?
>
> > > > >> >No, of course not. Can you say "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint
> > > > >> >you.
>
> > > > >> From my 04/04/2012 post to the "Male rider suffered a serious crash" thre=
> > > > >ad,
> > > > >> see:
>
> > > > >> >http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/mr-vandeman-is-a-very-unique-defe...
>
> > > > >> >which contains in part:
>
> > > > >> >For vandalizing Ian Richards=92 bike tire: not guilty.
>
> > > > >> >Since the punctured tire could not be found, this count was Richards=92 =
> > > > >word
> > > > >> >against Vandeman=92s, leaving plenty of room for reasonable doubt. At th=
> > > > >is news,
> > > > >> >Vandeman moved forward and back in his seat very rapidly.
>
> > > > >> >For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty.
>
> > > > >> >In my opinion, the evidence and testimony was weakest on this charge. At=
> > > > > one
> > > > >> >point Cook had argued for the charge to be thrown out since there was qu=
> > > > >ite
> > > > >> >nearly no evidence that Richards had felt threatened. But in closing >ar=
> > > > >guments,
> > > > >> >Cabanero made the point that showing a weapon during a conflict is >a th=
> > > > >reat,
> > > > >> >intended to send a message, like Trench Coat, above. Apparently, the >ar=
> > > > >gument
> > > > >> >stuck.
>
> > > > >> >For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty.
>
> > > > >> >For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty.
>
> > > > >> >The jury said that there was no evidence that Vandeman had touched Alcal=
> > > > >a, >just
> > > > >> >his bike.
>
> > > > >> >For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.
>
> > > > >> To which you replied:
>
> > > > >> >BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF COURSE,
> > > > >> >WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know that juries convict
> > > > >> >the innocent and free the guilty all the time. Sorry to disappoint
> > > > >> >you.
>
> > > > >> So it would seem, even by your own admission, you were tried in court and=
> > > > > not
> > > > >> all the charges were dismissed. Please clarify. When you replied in part =
> > > > >"charge
> > > > >> dismissed", to what were you referring?
>
> > > > >Assault.
>
> > > > Just as I thought, you were hiding behind a nitpick. You should go into
> > > > politics, or maybe even the environmental movement.
>
> > > "Charge dismissed" is not a nitpick. It only shows what an
> > > incorrigible liar you are. That's synonymous with "mountain biker").
>
> > For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.
>
> > Battery: Causing any physical harm or injury to the victim—such as a
> > cut, a burn, or a bullet wound—could constitute battery, but actual
> > injury is not required. Even though there is no apparent bruise
> > following harmful contact, the defendant can still be guilty of
> > battery; occurrence of a physical illness subsequent to the contact
> > may also be actionable. The second type of contact that may constitute
> > battery causes no actual physical harm but is, instead, offensive or
> > insulting to the victim. Examples include spitting in someone's face
> > or offensively touching someone against his or her will.
>
> > So you either assaulted him or touched his pee-pee.
>
> BS. He ran into me. HE is guilty of battery. Thanks for demonstrating
> your utter ignorance, once again.

I notice you didn't deny touching his pee-pee. Interesting...

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Apr 17, 1:37*pm, Len McGoogle > wrote:
> On Apr 16, 11:24*pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 13, 10:25*am, Len McGoogle > wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 12, 8:13*pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 12, 11:10*am, Bob Berger > wrote:
>
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > Mike Vandeman says...
>
> > > > > >On Apr 11, 10:24=A0pm, Bob Berger > wrote:
> > > > > >> In article .=
> > > > > >com>,
> > > > > >> Mike Vandeman says...
>
> > > > > >> >On Apr 11, 1:20=3DA0pm, JVaughn > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> On Apr 10, 8:28=3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> > > > > >> >> > On Apr 10, 10:54=3DA0am, Len McGoogle > wrote:
>
> > > > > >> >> > > On Apr 9, 10:10=3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman > wr=
> > > > > >ote:
>
> > > > > >> >> > > > Mountain bikers can't even get along with fellow mountain bikers=
> > > > > >! I
> > > > > >> >> > > > guess it's a major sin not to get out of their way quickly!
>
> > > > > >> >> > > > Mike
>
> > > > > >> >> > > >http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6713154/Helmet-cam-films-cyclists=
> > > > > >-cl=3D
> > > > > >> >ash
>
> > > > > >> >> > > > Helmet-cam films cyclists' clash
>
> > > > > >> >> > > Imagine if one of the cyclists you assaulted had one of those helm=
> > > > > >et
> > > > > >> >> > > cams.
>
> > > > > >> >> > Imagine if you ever told the truth, for a change.
>
> > > > > >> >> Did you, or did you not, assault a cyclist?
> > > > > >> >> Were you tried in court for this?
> > > > > >> >> Were you found guilty?
>
> > > > > >> >No, of course not. Can you say "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint
> > > > > >> >you.
>
> > > > > >> From my 04/04/2012 post to the "Male rider suffered a serious crash" thre=
> > > > > >ad,
> > > > > >> see:
>
> > > > > >> >http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/mr-vandeman-is-a-very-unique-defe...
>
> > > > > >> >which contains in part:
>
> > > > > >> >For vandalizing Ian Richards=92 bike tire: not guilty.
>
> > > > > >> >Since the punctured tire could not be found, this count was Richards=92 =
> > > > > >word
> > > > > >> >against Vandeman=92s, leaving plenty of room for reasonable doubt. At th=
> > > > > >is news,
> > > > > >> >Vandeman moved forward and back in his seat very rapidly.
>
> > > > > >> >For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty.
>
> > > > > >> >In my opinion, the evidence and testimony was weakest on this charge. At=
> > > > > > one
> > > > > >> >point Cook had argued for the charge to be thrown out since there was qu=
> > > > > >ite
> > > > > >> >nearly no evidence that Richards had felt threatened. But in closing >ar=
> > > > > >guments,
> > > > > >> >Cabanero made the point that showing a weapon during a conflict is >a th=
> > > > > >reat,
> > > > > >> >intended to send a message, like Trench Coat, above. Apparently, the >ar=
> > > > > >gument
> > > > > >> >stuck.
>
> > > > > >> >For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty.
>
> > > > > >> >For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty.
>
> > > > > >> >The jury said that there was no evidence that Vandeman had touched Alcal=
> > > > > >a, >just
> > > > > >> >his bike.
>
> > > > > >> >For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.
>
> > > > > >> To which you replied:
>
> > > > > >> >BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF COURSE,
> > > > > >> >WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know that juries convict
> > > > > >> >the innocent and free the guilty all the time. Sorry to disappoint
> > > > > >> >you.
>
> > > > > >> So it would seem, even by your own admission, you were tried in court and=
> > > > > > not
> > > > > >> all the charges were dismissed. Please clarify. When you replied in part =
> > > > > >"charge
> > > > > >> dismissed", to what were you referring?
>
> > > > > >Assault.
>
> > > > > Just as I thought, you were hiding behind a nitpick. You should go into
> > > > > politics, or maybe even the environmental movement.
>
> > > > "Charge dismissed" is not a nitpick. It only shows what an
> > > > incorrigible liar you are. That's synonymous with "mountain biker")..
>
> > > For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.
>
> > > Battery: Causing any physical harm or injury to the victim—such as a
> > > cut, a burn, or a bullet wound—could constitute battery, but actual
> > > injury is not required. Even though there is no apparent bruise
> > > following harmful contact, the defendant can still be guilty of
> > > battery; occurrence of a physical illness subsequent to the contact
> > > may also be actionable. The second type of contact that may constitute
> > > battery causes no actual physical harm but is, instead, offensive or
> > > insulting to the victim. Examples include spitting in someone's face
> > > or offensively touching someone against his or her will.
>
> > > So you either assaulted him or touched his pee-pee.
>
> > BS. He ran into me. HE is guilty of battery. Thanks for demonstrating
> > your utter ignorance, once again.
>
> I notice you didn't deny touching his pee-pee. Interesting...

Thanks for demonstrating, once again, where your mind (such as it is)
is.There's no cure for that, you know.