My attorney, Raymond Gomez, has secured a COMPLETE DISMISSAL OF ALL CHARGES, WITH PREJUDICE!!!
Most important is the "with prejudice" part of this judicial decision; it means that the charges levelled against ME cannot be used against anyone,
for this offense, ever again!
Hear this, everyone: In California, a kite buggy CANNOT BE CITED AS A VEHICLE, and in California, using a kite buggy on a public beach CANNOT BE
CLASSIFIED AS "GAMES OR ACTIVITIES WHICH ENDANGER THE PUBLIC".
This decision was handed down on June 29th at 9:00 a.m. in Department 14 of the California Superior Court in San Diego County, by the Honorable
Richard Mills.
The reason the news was held until this late date was that if the District Attorney or the officer who cited me wanted to charge me with some other
offense, and re-submit the case, they had these last two weeks to do it. Nothing was filed, so I am free of any further harassment for this incident,
and legal precedent has been established by the court as previously stated.
WHOOPEE!!! WE WON!!! And a better win than I could have hoped for.
Now, if the fund is working, all I have to do is come up with $2500 to make it feel like this never happened. Legally, it never happened, and can
never happen to anyone else in exactly this same way. The Fun Police will have to come up with some other charge to use.
Now, the hard part begins: negotiating with the constabulary that rule the State Beach to get a COOPERATIVE agreement going that allows our sport,
with appropriate limitations (rather than criminal charges), and so that future buggy pilots will know the "road rules" and how to deal with the
authorities in these venues. As goes California, so goes the nation, or so they say... so now we have our work cut out for us. Finding the right
people, presenting the right facts and literature, arranging some sit-downs, or even a buggy demonstration and education session for decision-makers
in the State Parks and Recreation bureaucracy.
So... a very positive outcome for all of us, and a very hopeful stage has been set for further "ambassadorship" of our sport, with the long-term goal
of spreading this great pastime to more people, in more places, legally and hassle-free.
Needless to say, I'm walking on air, and must repeat myself again: THANK YOU, TO ALL WHO SUPPORTED AND GAVE THOUGHT, TIME, EFFORT, AND MONEY ON MY
BEHALF!!! You guys had as much to do with my ability to go forward with this thing as anyone, and you all deserve a HUGE amount of credit for taking
this on with the attitude that you did. This is why we value our growing numbers, and why we act together, shoulder to shoulder, when something like
this happens. It's a big, fat WE in the statement, "WE WON".
-The FORMER Karlsbad Kite KriminalJon Ellis - 12-7-2005 at 08:14 PM
Mike this is the best news our buggy community has gotten in a long while. Thanks for standing up for buggying in your court battle. We will all
benefit from the right to buggy safely on California beaches, and now we know what a force we truely have in our buggy community.
Great things are ahead for our buggy community, but for now we still need to finish the MDLDF. In the next few days we will post what is lacking in
funding for Mike. The case may be over and the lawyer was paided, for a job well done I might add. We still need to help Mike in managing this debt
so it won't be such a burden on his family.
Thanks go out to Claxton Thompson, John Ruggiero, John Romanek, Dave Dickerson, Steve Bateman, Dean Jordon, Corey Jensen, and David Gormberg, to
mention a few, that helped make this possible.
Jon Ellis
.Virus - 15-7-2005 at 08:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lack-O-Slack
Greetings, Buggy Family world wide!
GREAT NEWS, EVEN BETTER THAN HOPED FOR!!!
My attorney, Raymond Gomez, has secured a COMPLETE DISMISSAL OF ALL CHARGES, WITH PREJUDICE!!! ......
Hello from Germany!
Though my English is not the best, as a member in the GPA (German Paracart Association) we observed the case with great interest! Gratulations!! Hope,
we'll never get similar problems in Germany!
Best regards,
Andi (G337)
Look at: Alien-Buggygoreo95033 - 15-7-2005 at 02:49 PM
Mike, that is excellent news! What was the case number? It might be nice to read over the info available on the court's website and keep in the old
kite bag for reference. Thanks.Lack-O-Slack - 18-7-2005 at 10:12 AM
Greetings, Greg!
No case number on the paperwork I have... it was filed by the citation number. I will be contacting my attorney again, this week, to see if I can get
final copies of the transcript of the case, though since it did not go to trial, there may not be much, other than some sort of filing of the decision
via the prosecutor's (DA's) office.
I want some more in writing, too, and it's frustrating that our courts make it so confusing, you don't know even what to ask for. I paid the guy
pretty good, so I'll let the lawyer "go fetch", as it were. I'll also get a receipt to send to the fund, so that folks will have written proof of my
expenditure on the lawyer.blown - 12-1-2007 at 11:27 PM
WHOOPS HIT THE POST KEY TO SOON!!
QUESTION LACK -O- SLACK MAYBE YOU COULD ANSWER
I WAS FLYING MY KITE AT SALT CREEK BEACH (A COUNTY BEACH) THE
OTHER DAY AND A LIFEGAURD TOLD ME THAT TECHNICALY IT IS ILLEGAL
TO FLY MY KITE ON THE BEACH. IT IS WINTER AND NOBODY WAS AT THE
BEACH SO HE SAID HE WOULD NOT ENFORCE IT, BUT IF A SHERIFF DROVE
DOWN HERE HE MIGHT CITE ME. WONDERING IF THEY ARE ILL INFORMED?
ANY COMMENTS WOULD BE APRECIATED .
THANKS
STEVESecondWind - 13-1-2007 at 07:59 AM
Way to go!
Do have a PayPal account set up for accepting donations?
It’s quick and easy to use. Only downside is that PayPal gets 3% for fees…pea - 16-1-2007 at 08:42 AM
Wasn't a woman killed by a buggy somewhere? Don't they go about 50mph? Sounds like a dangerous activity to me.
Not that i'm complaining, but you have to think of it from both sides. If i was the type who liked to sun bath on the beach (which i'm not), i
wouldn't want to be run over by a buggy at 30mph, pretty sure it'd cause me damage too.popeyethewelder - 16-1-2007 at 10:46 AM
Congrats Mike, great news well donejantie - 16-1-2007 at 09:38 PM
way to go!!!!
Pea's post
Lack-O-Slack - 17-1-2007 at 07:45 PM
You're so right, Pea... we must all learn to see things from the other guy's shoes, so that we know how to act as "diplomats" for our sport, rather
than engaging in confrontations and the negative consequences which always result.
However... most of us do this sport safely, and would NEVER consider blasting down an unexplored beach with poor visibility, at unreasonable speeds.
I almost never exceed 25 mph on the beach, and when I do, it's in a totally unoccupied stretch, that I've CHECKED OUT CAREFULLY, FIRST. Sunbathers
are low profiles, and a collision is not completely unavoidable, not to mention dog walkers without leashes, toddlers who run back and forth without
looking, people who don't know which way to turn as we approach, all those unpredictable situations that could get ugly in a hurry. Many times, I've
had to pull a quick U-turn, when a bather suddenly stood up and headed for the water, paying absolutely no attention in any direction except seaward.
So, yep, it's up to us to conduct ourselves safely, and assume full, PERSONAL responsibility for our actions. However, law enforcement and lifeguard
services have a nasty habit of attempting to make their jobs easier by just forbidding anything they don't want to "manage". And to label any sport
or activity as inherently "dangerous" just because it's different is abuse of authority in its purest form. We have a right to be free until we do
something that warrants the loss of that freedom, and not to be prosecuted or excluded from public venues, simply because a lazy lifeguard anticipates
that there "could be" a problem. When's the last time a cop pulled you over and issued a ticket, because he knew your car was capable of 180 mph, and
he just wanted to make sure you wouldn't be speeding on his highway? That's not how democracy is supposed to work, and since we're in the process of
ramming our brand of freedom down the throats of half the world, these days, doncha think WE BETTER GET IT RIGHT?
I looked in the Criminal case records but didn't find anything.bbrex - 11-6-2010 at 02:17 PM
This case cannot be referenced as it was settled in chambers. We have been down this road allready and have done a lot of research to try to get the
judgement, unfortunately it will not help our cause.
Bradindigo_wolf - 11-6-2010 at 02:27 PM
And I thought Lexis (case law search engine) was just trying to play mind games with me.
ATB,
SamWELDNGOD - 27-6-2010 at 04:39 AM
Mike ,I need info bad!! The state of virginia is doin it to me now . I have some Qs about what happened to you. My biggest prob is I'm the only one
around here that does this ,so I got no backing. I'm gonna have to go solo:karate:kitemaker4 - 27-6-2010 at 06:43 AM
I am not sure if Mike reads this forum anymore. If you want I think I have an old e-mail address and you can contact him if it is still good. Since
the case did not go to court there are no records. I am the one that contacted him to get information several years ago for napkra.
Susan (npw goddess)flexiblade - 25-4-2011 at 03:20 PM
I don't think this did anything for the kite community - ban at Ocean Beach proves that - in the end he was able to avoid paying any fine - that's it,
no precedent period - exactly why washington is having to go about it's process in a slow and timely manner - with no connection to this whatsoever.
Hollow victory showing that we need to be proactive where ever we may fly - being respectful and responsible representatives of our activities
ensuring future access to those areas. Anyone walking on to a california beach and saying to a ranger or lifeguard, "there's case evidence for my
right to do this activity (kiting) here and there's nothing you can do about it.", will in short order find themselves a periah in that local
community for getting a ban placed on any and all kiting activities.AD72 - 25-4-2011 at 03:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by flexiblade
I don't think this did anything for the kite community - ban at Ocean Beach proves that - in the end he was able to avoid paying any fine - that's it,
no precedent period - exactly why washington is having to go about it's process in a slow and timely manner - with no connection to this whatsoever.
Hollow victory showing that we need to be proactive where ever we may fly - being respectful and responsible representatives of our activities
ensuring future access to those areas. Anyone walking on to a california beach and saying to a ranger or lifeguard, "there's case evidence for my
right to do this activity (kiting) here and there's nothing you can do about it.", will in short order find themselves a periah in that local
community for getting a ban placed on any all kiting activities.
Well put. We are all ambassadors for the sport. Choose your battles wisely. Be courteous and responsible.Bladerunner - 26-4-2011 at 02:50 PM
Is it possible that OB could try a similar method to what is working in Washington?
Is there someplace that you can apply to hold " events " on the beach?flexiblade - 26-4-2011 at 08:39 PM
It would be a bit difficult there to do something similar to what the NAPKA chapters in Washington are doing. The really open spot of the beach is at
the north end (just south of the cliff house restaurant) - its about 3/4 of a mile long and a 1/4 of that is kite surfer territory - they tend to mark
it with their lines, kites, etc... South of this area is all Plover country (3.3 miles) - heavily enforced with lots of signage. This beach was a
difficult area to run before the ban due to the amount of tourists that frequent the spot but has become much tighter after the ban even if we were
allowed to run it.
This is why I have pulled up my stakes and headed North to Dillon Beach - it's private and has a polite policy of be respectful of them and they will
be respectful of you.
To go about setting up a NAPKA chapter for the use of a half mile stretch of beach, which the general public would not understand or respect the sport
in such close proximity (the running area or width at ocean beach is about 15 feet of hard pack at the most generous low tide - nothing like the
Oregon beaches I saw at SOBB). To set up race circuits in such a confined space would be impractical - let alone the authorities would not be too
keen on blocking a massive section off from the going public - 100 ft back from running areas to avoid people walking into the lines. The amount of
work for a tiny amount of usage basically made it impractical.
There were a handful of regulars there that were obviously peaved when the ban went into effect - but have not taken any steps that I know of to
remedy the situation. I live 130 miles away - difficult to keep up with local authorities and events for any kind of understanding or coordination to
take place.
The fight was started by a local supervisor to the lifeguards who interpreted our use of the beach to be in line with the likes of skateboarders and
therefor deemed us a hazardous risk to the public - a ticketable offense to be on the beach with wheels - ATB's, Buggies, Landsailers, Blowkarts,
etc... The kitesurfers on the other hand were not included - power kiting on the beach is totally acceptable. Sorry for the long and short of it but
there it is.
Congratulations - but not a precedent
RichardM - 11-11-2011 at 07:59 AM
.
Although Mike is a hero for standing up for his and other kiters' rights and local kiters should consider hiring his attorney, Raymond Gomez, whenever
possible, Mike is mistaken concerning the extent of his victory.
The phrase "with prejudice" only meant that HE could not be charged or sued civilly for that particular incident.
Furthermore, Superior Court rulings have no precedental value. Only California Court of Appeal and Supreme Court Opinions may set precedent.
RichardMPHREERIDER - 11-11-2011 at 09:31 AM
Rich M ...excellent point. so at the the time of the SPECIFIC incident HE was not endangering the public ....not that it (whatever the activity)is
not an endangerment to the public EVER.
hey R are you pimp'n' the law gig for mr. g? or are you the "low post Joes" who knows?
