> > In article <2fefb0fb-0cf2-4b11-9fa4-6039fe686...@k10g2000pbk.googlegroups.com>,
> > Mike Vandeman says...

> > >On Apr 11, 10:24=A0pm, Bob Berger <Bob_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > >> In article <bf75a720-326f-4672-a695-48d5673eb...@h4g2000pbe.googlegroups.=
> > >com>,
> > >> Mike Vandeman says...

> > >> >On Apr 11, 1:20=3DA0pm, JVaughn <justinvau...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> On Apr 10, 8:28=3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >> >> > On Apr 10, 10:54=3DA0am, Len McGoogle <kayak4...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >> >> > > On Apr 9, 10:10=3DA0pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> 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").