*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
It seems this case should be appealed, if there is any chance it will
be used as a precedent. It seems like it could be proven that that
whole argument was specious, and should be stricken because:
What may be "invisible" in one setting (woods) is very obvious and
highly visible in another.... desert, snow, urban traffic. The
military designed three, maybe more, camo patterns for use in arctic
and desert and wooded terrain. If there would have been a military use
for being invisible in urban traffic, they would have still another
camo pattern, and it wouldn't be close to the three we are all used
to. With apologies to any "good guy" lawyers or judges who are list
members, this is why people hate attorneys, and have no respect for
what some (most?) judges allow to happen in their courtrooms. They are
not into common sense and justice, they are in it for the money and
for the "points of law".
Barley Sauce!!!!
Maybe if the accident would have happened high in the forests of the
Sierra Nevada mountains, but Sacramento?
Bob.
===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@uller.skylee.com>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@uller.skylee.com>
Send administrative queries to <mil-veh-request@uller.skylee.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 05 2000 - 22:42:38 PST