Free Blog Listings @ Blog Annoucne

blog search directory

Save the Net

My Zimbio
KudoSurf Me!

Listed on BlogShares

Motorcycle Bloggers International

Sell Links On Your Site

Screaming Eagle parts- Genuine Harley-Davidson Parts and Accessories and Genuine Harley-Davidson MotorClothes. Search and buy from our online parts and accessories catalog. Order from Surdyke.com and be the first to know about our Free Freight Sales! Over 95,000 orders filled!



Archive for the 'DUI' Category

Habitual DUI offender kills motorcyclist

Posted in Auto Negligence, Brevard County, DUI, Florida, Law, Local, Motorcycles, News, Titusville on February 26th, 2007

 (Titusville, Florida) James E. Bremmer, 53, of Titusville has had his driver licensed revoked for more than 5 years for arrests on 3 DUIs back in 1998. The charges were enough to mark him as a habitual offender, yet he was driving a borrowed pick up truck on Sunday night and veered into the path of 52 year old motorcyclist Dennis Bestwick. The pick up truck that Bremmer was driving side swiped Bestwick while riding his motorcycle northbound on US 1 killing him.

Bremmer has been charged with DUI manslaughter, driving with a suspended license, violation of right of way and DUI with property damage. Trooper Kim Miller also noted that if someone lent Bremmer the truck on a revoked license, that person could face fines for allowing an unauthorized driver access.

Because, Trooper Kim Miller, the public information officer for the FHP does not recognize me as a news source, I have to refer to a story just released to the mass media published in the Sun Sentinel for this post.

Source:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

New date set for Billy Lane Case – clerical error at fault

Posted in Brevard County, Case Research, Celebrity, Chopper Builders, DUI, Florida, Investigative Reports, Journalism, Law, Local, Media, Melbourne, Motorcycles, News, Newspaper on February 26th, 2007

A recent article in Florida Today “breaking news” section seems to stirred up old news in the Billy Lane DUI Manslaughter case. The article entitled Lane scheduled for court appearance reports that two of the three charges Lane faced were dropped. The story seems to have spawned from an earlier report on February 23 by WFTV channel 9, Orlando reporting Two Charges Dropped Against Celebrity Motorcycle Builder. This is nothing new in the case and most that have been following the Billy Lane cases know that this happened months ago.

What caught my eye in the story was the date of March 16 being reported as scheduled for next appearance. Because I was present during the last docket sounding on February 2 and reported the next court date to be March 23, 2007, I wanted to know why the date had been changed. It appears that there was a clerical error made on all of the cases from the February 2nd docket setting them for the next date of March 23rd. When the error had been discovered in the conflicting dates, notices were sent out to all parties notifying them of the new date set to March 16th.

Aside the criminal case for DUI manslaughter Lane faces, there is a pending civil suit against Billy Lane and ChryslerDaimler for the wrongful death of victim Gerald Morelock. Billy Lane was driving a promotional vehicle owned by Dodge on the night of September 4th that struck and killed Morelock while attempting to pass 3 vehicles in a double yellow no passing zone along Highway A1A in Melbourne Beach.

Source:

http://www.wftv.com/news/11094035/detail.html

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070224/BREAKINGNEWS/70224004

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Auto negligence case against Billy Lane and Dodge set for trial

Posted in Auto Negligence, Brevard County, Case Research, Celebrity, Chopper Builders, DUI, Florida, Law, Local, Motorcycles, News, Titusville on February 7th, 2007

 Titusville Courthouse

(Titusville, Florida) Trial target date set for August 20, 2007 in wrongful death auto negligence case against Billy Lane and DaimlerChrysler Corporation.

Although today’s appearance in the civil case against Billy Lane and Dodge was a calendar hearing, there were some motions presented to the court. Present at the hearing today were Jeffery Vernis, Esq. and Terrance Perkins attorneys for defendant, William D. Lane. William McCandless, attorney for defendant, DaimlerChrysler, was present by telephone. Representing the plaintiff(s) Dolores J. Morelock, Estate of Gerald V Morelock, were S. Sammy Cacciatore and Sammy M. Cacciatore. The hearing was held in chambers of Honorable Judge John D. Moxley Jr. at 1:30 pm today.

Jeffrey Vernis Presented an oral argument to the court on his Motion To Dismiss, filed November 26, 2006, asking the court to dismiss the case against Lane. The Motion To Dismiss states that the plaintiff fails to set forth the required elements of negligence in the complaint filed. Vernis made oral argument before the court on the motion to dismiss while citing the Florida Law, Rules & Guidelines and case law. Cacciatore stated to the court that while he felt the complaint was sufficient, he would be willing to add the word “negligence” to paragraph 9 in an amended complaint. Judge Moxley denied the motion to dismiss and accepted the offer of the amended complaint.

Jeffrey Vernis next approached the court on the Motion For Speedy Trial that was filed by the plaintiff on November 7, 2006. Vernis stated that the motion had been ruled on without being heard and asked that the court entertain his response. Judge Moxley allowed Vernis to go on and then asked if he could be prepared for trial in four and a half months. Vernis called the motion for speedy trial “premature” and stated “your Honor, I would be very shocked if we could be ready for trial in four and a half months.” Judge Moxley upheld the motion for speedy trial and set the trial to be heard on August 20, 2007.

William McCandless, attorney for DaimlerChrysler was to speak to the court by telephone about the affirmative defenses that he had filed on November 15, 2006, but McCandless had another call and disconnected from the hearing.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Two attorneys appear for Billy Lane – DUI Manslaughter Case continued

Posted in Brevard County, Case Research, Celebrity, Chopper Builders, DUI, Florida, Investigative Reports, Law, Local, Melbourne, Motorcycles, News on February 2nd, 2007

(Melbourne, Florida) Billy Lane criminal case calendar call, February 2, 2007.

I had reported on January 19th that Billy Lane had changed attorneys to represent him in the DUI Manslaughter case that was set for calendar call today. The report, it seems, was incorrect. It was learned earlier today that Lane has added an attorney to the case. Two attorneys stood before Judge Allawas at the Viera courthouse in Brevard County, Florida to request the case be set for calendar call
on March 23, 2007.

Attorney Keith Szachacz, Esq.Keith F. Szachacz, Esq. appeared for the law office of Funk, Szachacz & Diamond, LLC.

Attorney Robert Ralph Berry Robert Ralph Berry was present representing the law offices of Eisenmenger, Berry & Peters, P.A. Berry, stood behind Szachacz and agreed to the new date of March 23. Judge Allawas asked if Defendant, Lane was present and both attorneys stated that Billy Lane was not present today. The Judge asked if Lane was being represented by both offices. Judge Allawas remarked “that scares me” when it was confirmed that Billy Lane was being represented by both.

Billy Lane also has a related civil case pending were he and ChryslerDaimler are being sued for auto negligence and the wrongful death of Gerald Morelock. This case has been scheduled for February 7th 2007 at the Titusville Courthouse.


Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

Billy Lane Changes Attorney In Criminal DUI Manslaughter Case

Posted in Brevard County, Case Research, Celebrity, Chopper Builders, DUI, Florida, Investigative Reports, Law, Local, Melbourne, Motorcycles, News, State on January 19th, 2007

(Melbourne, Florida) - New attorney of record named in Billy Lane criminal case.

It appears as though attorney Kepler Funk will no longer be defending Billy Lane against the pending DUI Manslaughter charges held against him in Brevard County, Florida. Notice of Appearance and other new pleadings were filed earlier today by Viera attorney Gregory Eisenmenger.

Billy Lane’s new attorney of record, Gregory Eisenmenger filed a demand for trial along with a request for copy of charges while giving notice to the court of his appointment to the case.

The Plaintiff, the Sate of Florida, has also filed new pleadings in case No. 05-2006-CF-027824-AXXX-XX of Supplemental Discovery and a Subpoena Duces Tecum, which is requiring the Defendant, William D. Lane to produce a document or documents pertinent to a proceeding. The court record also show that Gregory Eisenmenger also filed a Notice of Discovery and Statement of Particulars on behalf of his client Billy Lane.

The DUI Manslaughter charges pending against Billy Lane were filed after the September 4, 2006 crash that took the life of motorcyclist Gerald Morelock, 56 of Melbourne Beach, Florida. Witnesses on the road that night have stated that Lane was speeding and had crossed the double yellow lines in an attempt to pass 3 vehicles in a 2006 Dodge pick up owned by the DaimlerChrysler Corporation. Billy Lane and DaimlerChrysler have been named in a auto negligence suit for the wrongful death of Gerald Morelock.

Billy Lane is scheduled to appear before Brevard County Judge Allawas on February 2, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. at the Viera courthouse. Neither attorney could be reached at this time for comment. This is a preliminary report, a complete follow up will be posted as documents are retrieved and more news becomes available.

Source:

Brevard Clerk of Court public record

law.com

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dodge answers auto negligence suit

Posted in Auto Negligence, Brevard County, Case Research, Chopper Builders, DUI, Florida, Investigative Reports, Law, Local, Melbourne, Motorcycles, News, Titusville on December 15th, 2006

William McCandless, attorney for DaimlerChrysler, in the suit against the corporation and Billy Lane has filed an answer to the auto negligence and wrongful death claim for Dolores Morelock, mother of Gerald Morelock.

This is going to be a rather lengthy post because the answer contains in all, 37 responses. Problem being, as in all answers in law, the document does not contain the questions. So, for me to post just the answers would not make much sense. It would be very tricky to go back and forth from the page that has some of the questions to this page. Not only tricky, but confusing. The other option I considered was to only post some of the most important or highlight responses. Whereas that would not be fair, some may want to know things that are omitted, while others may say items were omitted intentionally.

Basically this will be a recap of what has transpired with the addition of the answers that are on the document that I retrieved from the Brevard County Clerks office today. Although the answer was filed on the 14th of November, it had not been in the case folder up until today when I checked.

With that said, below this will be the text of the two documents that are pertaining to one another. The complaint filed for the Plaintiff, Dolores Morelock, mother of Gerald Morelock and the answer filed for the Defendant, DaimlerChrysler. I should mention here as well, the attorneys involved.

  • Defendant (1) William D. Lane
    Party Attorney: Terence R. Perkins
    Party Attorney: G. Jeffrey Vernis
  • Defendant (2) Daimlerchrysler Corporation
    Party Attorney: William McCandless
  • Plaintiff (1) Dolores J. Morelock
    Party Attorney: S. Sammy Cacciatore JR
  • Plaintiff (2) Estate of Gerald V Morelock
    Party Attorney: S. Sammy Cacciatore JR

Allegations Common To All Counts

  1. This is an action for damages which exceed the sum of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00).

DC Lacks sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore must deny the allegations.

  1. At all material times hereto, the decedent. Gerald V. Morelock, was a resident of Brevard County, Florida.

DC Lacks sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore must deny the allegations.

  1. At all times material hereto, Dolores J. Morelock, was the mother to Gerald V. Morelock, deceased.

DC Lacks sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore must deny the allegations.

  1. At all times material hereto, the Plaintiff, Dolores J. Morelock, was the duly authorized personal representative of the estate of Gerald V. Morelock.

DC Lacks sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore must deny the allegations.

  1. At all times material hereto, the Defendant, William D. Lane was a resident of the State of Florida.

DC Lacks sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore must deny the allegations.

  1. The Defendant, Daimlerchrysler Corporation, at all material times was and is incorporated in the State of Michigan and has been authorized to transact business in the State

DC denies the allegations in the form and manner alleged as untrue.

  1. The Defendant, Daimlerchrysler Corporation, at all material times was the owner of the 2006 Dodge pickup truck with Michigan tag number 2922HU (hereinafter referred to as “2006 Dodge pickup truck”).

DC admits the allegations.

  1. The Defendant, Daimlerchrysler Corporation, at all times material to this action manufactured, distributed and marketed motor vehicles under the trademark Dodge.

DC admits the allegations.

  1. On or about the 4th day of September, 2006, the decedent, Gerald V. Morelock, wearing a helmet, was properly operating his 1983 Yamaha motorcycle with his headlight illuminated northbound on State Road A1A at the same time as the Defendant, William D. Lane, was operating the 2006 Dodge pickup truck southbound on State Road A1A in the northbound lane and hit the motorcycle operated by the decedent, Gerald V. Morelock, head on.

DC Lacks sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore must deny the allegations.

  1. The Plaintiff’s decedent, Gerald V. Morelock, died on the 4th day of September, 2006 in Brevard County, Florida.

DC Lacks sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore must deny the allegations.

  1. At the time of the collision, the Defendant, William D. Lane, was operating the promotional 2006 Dodge pickup which was owned by DaimlerChrysler Corporation, and had been provided along with other promotional vehicles to the Defendant, William D. Lane, for his use.

DC admits that it furnished the subject vehicle for Lane’s use but denies the remaining allegations in the form and manner alleged.

  1. The 2006 Dodge pickup was and is a promotional vehicle with logos, advertising art work and the “Dodge” name prominently all over the front, side and rear of the vehicle for the purpose of advertising and marketing Dodge pickup trucks. Three photographs of that 2006 Dodge pickup promotional vehicle are attached as Exhibit “A1 through A3″.

DC denies the allegations in the form and manner alleged.

  1. At all material times, the Defendant, William D. Lane, was using the vehicle owned by the Defendant, DaimlerChrysler Corporation, with permission and consent of DaimlerChrysler Corporation and for the economic benefit of the Defendant, DaimlerChrysler Corporation.

DC admits that Lane had DC’s permission to operate the vehicle bu lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations.

  1. The Defendant, DaimlerChrysler Corporation, received an economic benefit as a result of the Defendant, William D. Lane, operating the promotional Dodge pickup truck together with the other provided promotional vehicles on the roadways of the State of Florida as well as other states.

DC denies the allegations in the form and manner alleged.

  1. At the time of the collision, the Defendant, William D. Lane, was operating the 2006 Dodge pickup truck even though his license was suspended by the State of North Carolina.

DC Lacks sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore must deny the allegations.

  1. At the time of the collision, the Defendant, William D. Lane, was awaiting a sentencing from the courts of North Carolina for a charge of driving under the influence.

DC Lacks sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore must deny the allegations.

  1. At the time of the collision, the Defendant, William D. Lane, was operating his vehicle in excess of the posted speed limited.

DC Lacks sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore must deny the allegations.

  1. At the time of the collision, the Defendant, William D. Lane, was operating his vehicle southbound State Road A1A when he crossed the double yellow line and drove into the northbound lanes of State Road A1A.

DC Lacks sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore must deny the allegations.

  1. At the time of the collision, the Defendant, William D. Lane, had a blood alcohol level of .192, or an amount which is greater that twice the legal limit in the State of Florida.

DC Lacks sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore must deny the allegations.

  1. That as a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid wrongful acts of the Defendant, William D. Lane, Gerald V. Morelock died.

DC Lacks sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore must deny the allegations.

  1. At the time of the decedent’s demise, he was unmarried. The following are the beneficiaries of Gerald V. Morelock, deceased, and their relationship to the Plaintiff’s decedent as set forth by the Florida Wrongful Death Act:
Name Relationship
Dolores J. Morelock Mother

DC Lacks sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore must deny the allegations.

COUNT I

NEGLIGENCE OF WILLIAM D. LANE

The Plaintiff incorporates the Allegations Common to All Counts as if fully stated herein.

CLAIM OF THE ESTATE OF GERALD V. MORELOCK, DECEASED

  1. As a direct and proximate result of the aforedescribed wrongful acts of the Defendants, William D. Lane and DaimlerChrysler Corporation, and the ensuing death of Gerald V. Morelock, deceased, the estate has experienced the following losses:
  1. The loss of earnings of the deceased from the date of injury to the date of his death;
  2. The loss of the prospective net accumulations of the estate which reasonably could have been expected but for his wrongful death;
  3. Medical expenses due to the decedent’s injury;
  4. Funeral expenses.
  5. Prejudgement interest at the legal rate on all amounts which the estate has incurred for the property damage loss, medical expenses, and on any other liquidated expenses incurred as a result of the aforedescribed injuries and subsequent death of Gerald V. Morelock.

DC denies the inference of negligence directed against it as untrue. DC lacks sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the remaining allegations and therefore must deny the allegations.

CLAIM FOR THE BENEFIT OF DOLORES J. MORELOCK

  1. As further direct and proximate result of the aforedescribed wrongful acts of the Defendants, William D. Lane and DaimlerChrysler Corporation, and the ensuing death of Gerald V. Morelock, deceased, as a survivor and parent of her deceased child has suffered the following losses:
  1. The value of lost support and services from the date of her son’s injury to his death, with interest;
  2. The value of the future loss of support and services from the date of her son’s death;
  3. Mental pain and suffering from the date of her son’s injury up to the present, and future mental pain and suffering as a result of her son’s death.

DC denies the inference of negligence directed against it as untrue. DC lacks sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the remaining allegations and therefore must deny the allegations.

Wherefore, Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation requests judgment in its favor, along with an award of costs and attorney fees.

COUNT II

LIABILITY OF DAIMLERCHRYSLER

The Plaintiff incorporates the Allegations Common to All Counts as if fully stated herein.

DC incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-23 of the amended complaint as though set forth herein, paragraph by paragraph and word for word.

  1. A motor vehicle is a dangerous instrumentality.

The allegation calls for legal conclusion, for which no answer is required. However, DC acknowledges Florida common law that has construed automobiles to be subject to the “dangerous instrumentality doctrine”.

  1. The Defendant, William D. Lane, had a history of disobeying traffic laws, receiving numerous moving citations, and being a reckless, incompetent or unfit driver.

DC Lacks sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore must deny the allegations.

  1. The Defendant, DaimlerChrysler Corporation, knew or should have known through the exercise of due care that the Defendant, William D. Lane, had a history of disobeying traffic laws, receiving numerous moving citations, and being a reckless, incompetent or unfit driver.

DC denies of the allegations as untrue.

  1. The Defendant, DaimlerChrysler Corporation, entrusted the 2006 Dodge truck which was involved in the above mentioned crash to the Defendant, William D. Lane, for the economic benefit received from the advertisement and marketing by the Defendant, William D. Lane, operating the promotional 2006 Dodge pickup truck.

DC admits that it provided Lane with the authority to operate the vehicle but denies the remaining allegations in the form and manner alleged as untrue.

  1. The entrustment for economic benefit of the Dodge truck by the Defendant, DaimlerChrysler Corporation, to the Defendant, William D. Lane, created an appreciable risk of harm to others, including the deceased, Gerald V. Morelock, and a concomitant or corresponding duty on the part of the Defendant, DaimlerChrysler Corporation.

DC denies the allegations in the form and manner alleged as untrue but admits to those duties imposed upon it by operation of law.

  1. The death of the Plaintiff’s decedent, Gerald V. Morelock, was proximately caused by the negligence of both the Defendant, DaimlerChrysler Corporation, entrusting the 2006 Dodge pickup truck to William D. Lane thus providing the opportunity the actions of the Defendant, William D. Lane, as described above.

DC denies the allegations in the form and manner alleged as untrue.

CLAIM OF THE ESTATE OF GERALD V. MORELOCK, DECEASED

  1. As a direct and proximate result of the aforedescribed wrongful acts of the Defendants, William D. Lane and DaimlerChrysler Corporation, and the ensuing death of Gerald V. Morelock, deceased, the estate has experienced the following losses:
  1. The loss of earnings of the deceased from the date of injury to the date of his death;
  2. The loss of the prospective net accumulations of the estate which reasonably could have been expected but for his wrongful death;
  3. Medical expenses due to the decedent’s injury;
  4. Funeral expenses.
  5. Prejudgement interest at the legal rate on all amounts which the estate has incurred for the property damage loss, medical expenses, and on any other liquidated expenses incurred as a result of the aforedescribed injuries and subsequent death of Gerald V. Morelock.

DC denies the allegations in the form and manner alleged as untrue.

CLAIM FOR THE BENEFIT OF DOLORES J. MORELOCK

  1. As a further direct and proximate result of the aforedescribed wrongful acts of the Defendants, William D. Lane and DaimlerChrysler Corporation, and the ensuing death of Gerald V. Morelock, deceased, as a survivor and parent of her deceased child has suffered the following losses:
  1. The value of lost support and services from the date of her son’s injury to his death, with interest;
  2. The value of the future loss of support and services from the date of her son’s death;
  3. Mental pain and suffering from the date of her son’s injury up to the present, and future mental pain and suffering as a result of her son’s death.

DC denies the allegations in the form and manner alleged as untrue.

Wherefore, Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation requests judgment in its favor, along with an award of costs and attorney fees.

COUNT III

PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST WILLIAM D. LANE

DC incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-31 of the amended complaint as though set forth herein, paragraph by paragraph and word for word.

  1. The Defendant’s, William D. Lane, conduct, specifically drinking alcoholic beverages, operating a motor vehicle, exceeding the posted speed limit, and passing vehicles where there was a double yellow line were intentional acts on the part of the Defendant, William D. Lane, and the Defendant, William D. Lane, had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of the conduct and the high probability that injury or damage to another individual would result and, despite that knowledge, intentionally pursued that course of conduct.

DC Lacks sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore must deny the allegations.

  1. The Defendant’s, William D. Lane, conduct was so reckless or wonting in care that it constituted a conscious disregard or indifference to the life, safety, or rights of persons exposed to such conduct, such as the decedent, Gerald V. Morelock.

DC Lacks sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore must deny the allegations.

  1. The Defendant’s, William D. Lane, conduct did cause the death of the decedent, Gerald V. Morelock.

DC Lacks sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore must deny the allegations.

  1. A certified copy of the probable cause affidavit is attached as Exhibit “B”.

DC Lacks sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore must deny the allegations.

CLAIM OF THE ESTATE OF GERALD V. MORELOCK, DECEASED

  1. As a direct and proximate result of the aforedescribed wrongful acts of the Defendants, William D. Lane and DaimlerChrysler Corporation, and the ensuing death of Gerald V. Morelock, deceased, the Estate of Gerald V. Morelock seeks Punitive Damages from the Defendant, William D. Lane.

DC Lacks sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore must deny the allegations.

CLAIM FOR THE BENEFIT OF DOLORES J. MORELOCK

  1. As a further direct and proximate result of the aforedescribed wrongful acts of the Defendants, William D. Lane and DaimlerChrysler Corporation, and the ensuing death of Gerald V. Morelock, deceased, as a survivor and parent of her deceased child seeks Punitive Damages from the Defendant, William D. Lane.

DC Lacks sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore must deny the allegations.

Wherefore, Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation requests judgment in its favor, along with an award of costs and attorney fees.

END OF DOCUMENT

Below are the 3 pictures described as evidence Exhibit A1 – A3. The pictures are included as part of the auto negligence claim, not the answer from Dodge.

Exhibit A1

EXHIBIT A1

Exhibit A2

EXHIBIT A2

Exhibit A3

EXHIBIT A3

Source:

Both documents were obtained as public record for case no: 05-2006-CA-058089

Although these documents are public record, it takes me a great deal of time, effort and finances to document this case for the Internet. I ask that you respect this work by linking back to this site when using this article in whole or in part. Thanks.
 

Judge signs order in suit against Billy Lane and Dodge

Posted in Auto Negligence, Brevard County, Case Research, Chopper Builders, DUI, Florida, Law, Local, Motorcycles, News, Titusville on December 13th, 2006

Brevard Circuit Court Judge Moxley has signed the plaintiff’s (Morelock) motion for speedy trial in the auto negligence suit against William D. Lane and DaimlerChrysler Corporation. The motion for speedy trial was filed on November 7, 2006 by Sam Cacciatore, attorney for the Plaintiff, Dolores J. Morelock who is suing for the wrongful death of her son, Gerald Morelock.

Jeffrey Vernis, attorney for the defendant, Billy Lane, opposed the motion saying it was premature, insufficient on its face, and without substantive support. Vernis also said the motion should not have been filed without the case being scheduled for trial or not being on the trial docket, pointing out twice that the court must consider health as well as age of the plaintff in determining the motion.

Judge Moxley denied the response filed by Jeffrey Vernis on behalf of Billy Lane and granted the motion for speedy trial to the Plaintiff, Dolores Morelock. The motion states: The court is to give preference in this cause in setting matters on the court’s docket.

This case is currently set for Calendar Call: Hearing on February 7, 2007 at 1:30 pm to be heard at the Titusville Historic Courthouse in Titusville, Florida

Source:

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SPEEDY TRIAL

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SPEEDY TRIAL

Both documents were obtained as public record for case no: 05-2006-CA-058089

Your donations, where does the money go?

Posted in DUI, Editorial, Investigative Reports, Journalism, Media, National, News, Rants and Raves, State on December 11th, 2006

In a recent article that came out in the Toronto Star, in Canada they did a investigative report on MADD of Canada. The report entitled MADD’s `exorbitant costs’ anger charity’s volunteers filed by investigative reporter Kevin Donovan. Great work Kevin!

This report is shocking, but enlightening about where the money goes when caring citizens and victims of drunk drivers donate to MADD of Canada. The report shows that a mere 19% of every dollar goes toward charitable work. This has volunteers of the organization in rage. Volunteer being the key word here. The real backbone and workers of the organization. The ones that visit victims and help them with kindness. The unpaid workers of MADD of Canada, who are usually the family members or friends of a drunk driver victim.

While MADD of Canada claims that 83.6 % of the money donated goes to MADD of Canada programs. The financial documents of the organization show differently. The volunteers of the organization are calling for them to “clean up their act”. John Bates, who started the Canada based group back in 1982 called PRIDE (People to Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere) says MADD has taken a national tragedy and turned it into a fund raising machine. Bates group originally created when his friend’s daughter was killed by a drunk driver. In 1990 MADD USA expressed interest in coming into Canada, they combined Bates group and two others to form MADD of Canada.

This investigative report sparked my interest into what is going on behind the scenes of the US based charity organization, so I paid a visit to the MADD web site. Like many charity organizations, MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) started off with a great concept and good intentions. Could MADD here in the United States be guilty of the same type of internal activity as MADD of Canada?

A charity is required by the IRS to file a form 990 and the same information is available to the public. At the MADD web site the form 990 for year 2005 can be easily found in the annual report section of the MADD web site. The MADD annual report is made to show the public the good work that the organization does.

If we look at the top 5 paid employees of the MADD charity organization we see that the amount compensated for 40+ hours ranges from nearly $105,000.00 to right at $72,000.00 with the number of employees making over $50,000.00 listed as 38. This does not include the officers, directors or trustees. While the program CEO is only paid $55,000.00 a year, in contrast the director of program and development is compensated $152,408.00 yearly.

With the better part of the charitable work that MADD does being achieved on the local level by the volunteers and paid fund raisers, it may be that we need to have a closer look at what this charity does here at home. Bottom line, this charity winds up putting $.20 of the dollar you donate to charitable work.

According to the government web site for the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) there was 212 billion dollars collected by 700,000 government recognized charities in the year 2001. If you donate to a charity, make sure that your hard earned dollar goes as much towards the cause as possible. The better charities put between 60 to 80 % of the donation toward the charitable work.

What you can do.

Check the charity out before donating to them.

There are ways that you can check a charity out online or by telephone. A few good sources to check out a charity include Charity Navigator, the Better Business Charity Site or by telephone at (703) 276-0100 and the FTC Charity Fraud site which has a large list of resources here.

Telephone Calls: 

If the charity is calling you on the telephone, only donate then if you already know the charity and have donated before. Many charities use paid fund raisers to make telephone calls. If someone calls you on the phone asking for money for charity, ask them if they are being paid to call you. If so, find out how much they take of the donation for their service. Additionally, never give out your credit card, bank account or personal information over the phone. Try to get the address for the charity to send in your donation. This cuts out the middle man giving more of your dollar to the cause.

Summary: It is a shame that we need to check out a organization or program before donating money, however, you can see it has become necessary. Most organizations start out with the victim or less fortunate in mind. Greed can spread rapidly in a financial environment, so check your charities annual statement. When donating, you are best to donate at the local level.

Be careful of scammers that prey on your senses and kindness.

Do not stop donating to what you believe in, Believe in what you are donating to.

Source and credits:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/search.summary/orgid/4129.htm

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/tmarkg/charity.htm

http://www.thestar.com/

MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) form 990 as public information

DaimlerChrysler files affirmative defenses

Posted in Auto Negligence, Brevard County, Case Research, Chopper Builders, DUI, Florida, Law, Melbourne, Motorcycles, News on December 7th, 2006

(Melbourne, Florida) 12/06/2006 Answer to wrongful death complaint in the Brevard County court of Dolores J. Morelock Vs. William D Lane and DaimlerChrysler Corporation.

Dodge files answer in wrongful death suit

William McCandless, attorney for the defendant, DaimlerChrysler Corporation filed an answer in the civil suit against the company and Billy Lane for the Wrongful Death of Gerald Morelock. The document was filed on November 15, 2006 with the Brevard Clerk of Courts and a copy has been served on Nance, Cacciatore and Hamilton, the attorneys for the plaintiff.

Before I get into the answer, I want to add to the top of this post, the definition of the legal term that you will see used throughout the text of this document. The legal term definitions used on this blog are provided by law.com.

affirmative defenses: part of an answer to a charge or complaint in which a defendant takes the offense and responds to the allegations with his/her own charges, which are called “affirmative defenses.” These defenses can contain allegations, take the initiative against statements of facts contrary to those stated in the original complaint against them, and include various defenses based on legal principles. Many of these defenses fall into the “boilerplate” (stated in routine, non-specific language) category, but one or more of the defenses may help the defendant.

Below you will find the notice transposed in its entirety.

NOTICE OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT, DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION

NOW COMES the Defendant, DaimlerChrysler Corporation (“DC”), by counsel, and asserts the following Affirmative Defenses:

  1. No Negligence. Defendant DC was not guilty of any negligence which was a legal cause of any damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiffs’ decedent.
  1. Comparative Negligence. In the event that discovery demonstrates that Plaintiffs’ decedent was guilty of negligence which was the sole proximate cause of any damages allegedly sustained, plaintiffs’ recovery is therefore barred. Alternatively, in the event that discovery demonstrates that plaintiff’s decedents own negligence substantially contributed to the damages allegedly sustained, the recovery of plaintiff’s, if any, should be reduced proportionately.
  1. Third party fault. In the alternative, while continuing to deny any and all liability, DC asserts that plaintiff’s decedent’s alleged damages may have been the result of the negligence of third party over whom DC had no control and was not legally responsible. DC cannot identify such parties until discovery has been conducted. DC relies upon the doctrine of Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d1182 (Fla. 1993).

  1. Collateral source set-off. DC is entitled to a set-off for all payments made by collateral sources for bills, expenses, or other obligations which have been paid, or are payable to Plaintiff’s herein. Further, DC is entitled to a set-off for any settlements or compensation Plaintiffs may have received regarding the subject incident.

  1. Tort Reform and Insurance Act of 1986. Additionally, DC asserts that the incident herein falls under the provisions of the “Tort Reform and Insurance Act of 1986”. which said act specifically addresses, but is not limited to, joint and several liability and non-duplication of benefits. DC affirmatively pleads all of the defenses and rights available to it under said statute.

  1. Federal Pre-emption. Additionally, DC affirmatively states that it is entitled to any and all rights and privileges available to it under the Federal Pre-emption Doctrine.

  1. Apportionment of damages. Additionally, DC asserts that it is entitled to an Apportionment of damages in relation to the degree of fault of all parties, persons, companies or employers, whether joined as co-defendant or not.

  1. Mitigation of damages. In the event that discovery demonstrates that Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their alleged damages, the recovery of plaintiffs, if any, should be reduced accordingly.

  1. Intervening/superseding cause. In the event that discovery demonstrates that Plaintiff’s claim arose from a superseding and intervening causes unrelated to DC, then Plaintiffs claims are barred.

  1. Limitations of liability. Any recovery by Plaintiffs’ is limited by F.S.A. 324.021(9)(b).

  1. Failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiffs’ fail to plead the requisite elements of negligence to support a cause of action as required by Simon V. Tampa Electric Company. 202 So.2d209, 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967).

  1. Additional Affirmative Defenses. DC reserves the right to amend its answer to assert any additional affirmative defenses based upon either the law of Florida or facts and circumstances which may be disclosed throughout the course of discovery herein.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, DaimlerChrysler Corporation demands that plaintiffs’ Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and costs assessed against plaintiffs and further demands a trial by jury.

DENARDIS, MCCANDLESS & MILLER, P.C.

Signed by William McCandless

END OF DOCUMENT

Further research:

Norman Gregory Fernandez, ESQ article entitled YOU BETTER CHECK OUT THE PERSON THAT YOU LOAN YOUR CAR TO; YOU COULD BE HELD LEGALLY LIABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS. This article shows why Dodge may be held responsible in the case.

I posted the original civil action complaint against Billy Lane and Dodge on October 6th entitled Wrongful death complaint cites Billy Lane acted outrageously.

The complete wrongful death complaint with the answer from Dodge
         

Radio sports commentator claims Billy Lane interview

Posted in Announcements, Chopper Builders, DUI, Entertainment, Florida, Law, Melbourne, News, Radio on December 2nd, 2006

Scott Ferrall claims Billy Lane will tell whole story only to him

From the Scott Ferrall web site:

ON THE NEXT FERRALL SHOW:

WORLD EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW(FIRST ONE EVER) WITH CHOPPER INC’S BILLY LANE AFTER HIS DUI MANSLAUGHTER CHARGES. HE’S TELLING THE WHOLE STORY–ONLY TO FERRALL ! (CAPTAIN THUNDER JOINS IN) TONIGHT AT 9p(FRI)

Rick, a visitor to the site has told me in a comment to the post Billy Lane represented by Corporate Attorneys in civil suit that there was to be a interview.

I have sent an email to Scott to confirm the interview.