E-MAIL TO KATHY GARCIA, dated 7/13/13 ANTONIO BUENSUCESO's
COMMENTS ON TRAFFIC COLLISION REPORT RECEIVED VIA MAIL.
TRAFFIC COLLISION REPORT COMMENTS
|
7/14/13
 | | ||
FOR KATHY GARCIA
July 13, 2013
Dear Kathy,
I received from mail today a copy of the TRAFFIC COLLISION REPORT with local report
number 13 06 434. The document is composed of eight pages: p 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8.
As I read through I had my adrenaline puking with interest and bursting enthusiasm to rise and
depend truth against those individuals with evil intent to despise it. This is the cause I am writing
you today.
May I be allowed to write my comments on that TRAFFIC COLLISION REPORT.
A. ON CAUSE
The officer concerned seriously distorted the truth when he found that Party 1 (Buensuceso)
caused this collision by driving Vehicle #1 (Honda) in violation of 21658(a) VC
(Unsafe Lane Change) which states:
21658(a) VC
A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical within a single lane and shall not be moved
from the lane until such movement can be made with reasonable safety.
At this point, may I have your attention to page 7 line 11 to 13. Here, Party 1 (Buensuceso)
mentioned that she thinks that she may have been hit when she was about to change lanes
because her car began to swerve and said that she was sure she did not change lanes at that
particular point. Swerving of her car might have been triggered by an over speeding car hitting
her car from behind though she could not tell what car it was. The fact that V1 swerved due to
changing lanes as the officer alleged is bereft of truth because V1 though had plan of changing
lanes is sure that she stayed on her lane.The fact that V1 kept her lane is even corraborated
by Party 2 statement, line 19 to 21, where Party 2 said, V1 appeared to be changing lanes to
the right but did not do so as if seeing a vehicle already in the lane it was going to change into.
It can be derived from these statements from Party 1 and Party 2 that V1 did not change lanes
and driving cautiously at that particular point in time and therefore could not be cited nor charged
of violating 21658(a)VC.
B. ON " SUMMARY"
The concerned officer seriously erred in saying that P1 made an unsafe lane change. The truth
is Party 1 did not change lanes at that point in time. This is in consonance to Party 1 statement
that she is sure she did not change lanes at that time.
Same is the essence of Party 2 statement that V1 appeared to be changing lanes but kept
her lane as if seeing a vehicle already in the lane it was going to change into.
The effort of the concerned officer to link the shaking, swerving and rotating of V1 to the
changing of lanes was obviously devoid of merit for the simple reason that Party 1 did not change
lanes at all.
What more credible was the statement of Party 1 on page 7 line 11 to 13 where she said,
she thinks that she may have been hit when she was about to change lanes because V1 began to
swerve, and she experienced V1 to be rotating. Her experience could be validated by the
damage of massive impact on rear right side of V1.
Another significant point is that from line 31 to 32 of SUMMARY, there is this statement from
the concerned officer which dwindles down his credibility, if not administratively disciplined ,
" The front of V2 collided with the right rear of V1". Yes this is true most probably on the time
when Party 1 experienced shaking, rotating and swerving over on V1 and not when V1 was
about to rest from rotating. It is because, may I point out that Party 2 had her statement from
page 7 line 23 and 24 where she said , " as V1 came over to lane #6, the front of V2 collided
with the side of V1. ( see V1 right side view here) (see V1 rear right side view here)
Now, after seeing V1 right side view where Party 2 said V2 collided on, it is next to impossible,
to have V2 colliding ever to the rear right side of V1, in a rotating motion of V1 because V1 as
you know is not a round object.
On the other hand, if the fabricated statement from the concerned officer where he stated that
the front of V2 collided with the right rear of V1 before V1 came to rest after rotating then
the more V2 should have missed the right side of V1 because the impact would push V1 moved
farther away, Besides, please take a closer look again at V1 rear right side and V1 right side did
you see any indication that V2 front intimately kissed V1 from its rear right to the right side,
showing traces of damage from a rotary motion ? None. Hence, the more credible scenario was the
eyewitness account by Party 2 that the area where V2 collided with V1 at the end of the spinning
motion of V1 is on the right side of V1 and absolutely not on the rear side of V1 as contemplated
on by the concerned officer. But who must have caused the massive damage on the rear right side
of V1. Could there be a another mystery car, V3, involved who hit V1 from behind. If there was
then, how could this mystery car V3 ever hit V1 rear right side without having seen by Party 2 ?
Party 2 on her statement never stated nor alluded existence of V3 . Hence, V2 must have been
the culprit. Let us examine the damage incurred by V2 and compare it with V1 by examining
the sketches provided by the concerned officer.
I believe with these sketches you know did change lane and did it unsafely then lied .
Meanwhile, be rest assured that I will support you and ALL STATE INSURANCE to hold
Party 2 responsible.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Antonio L. Buensuceso
As I read through I had my adrenaline puking with interest and bursting enthusiasm to rise and
depend truth against those individuals with evil intent to despise it. This is the cause I am writing
you today.
May I be allowed to write my comments on that TRAFFIC COLLISION REPORT.
A. ON CAUSE
The officer concerned seriously distorted the truth when he found that Party 1 (Buensuceso)
caused this collision by driving Vehicle #1 (Honda) in violation of 21658(a) VC
(Unsafe Lane Change) which states:
21658(a) VC
A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical within a single lane and shall not be moved
from the lane until such movement can be made with reasonable safety.
At this point, may I have your attention to page 7 line 11 to 13. Here, Party 1 (Buensuceso)
mentioned that she thinks that she may have been hit when she was about to change lanes
because her car began to swerve and said that she was sure she did not change lanes at that
particular point. Swerving of her car might have been triggered by an over speeding car hitting
her car from behind though she could not tell what car it was. The fact that V1 swerved due to
changing lanes as the officer alleged is bereft of truth because V1 though had plan of changing
lanes is sure that she stayed on her lane.The fact that V1 kept her lane is even corraborated
by Party 2 statement, line 19 to 21, where Party 2 said, V1 appeared to be changing lanes to
the right but did not do so as if seeing a vehicle already in the lane it was going to change into.
It can be derived from these statements from Party 1 and Party 2 that V1 did not change lanes
and driving cautiously at that particular point in time and therefore could not be cited nor charged
of violating 21658(a)VC.
B. ON " SUMMARY"
The concerned officer seriously erred in saying that P1 made an unsafe lane change. The truth
is Party 1 did not change lanes at that point in time. This is in consonance to Party 1 statement
that she is sure she did not change lanes at that time.
Same is the essence of Party 2 statement that V1 appeared to be changing lanes but kept
her lane as if seeing a vehicle already in the lane it was going to change into.
The effort of the concerned officer to link the shaking, swerving and rotating of V1 to the
changing of lanes was obviously devoid of merit for the simple reason that Party 1 did not change
lanes at all.
What more credible was the statement of Party 1 on page 7 line 11 to 13 where she said,
she thinks that she may have been hit when she was about to change lanes because V1 began to
swerve, and she experienced V1 to be rotating. Her experience could be validated by the
damage of massive impact on rear right side of V1.
Another significant point is that from line 31 to 32 of SUMMARY, there is this statement from
the concerned officer which dwindles down his credibility, if not administratively disciplined ,
" The front of V2 collided with the right rear of V1". Yes this is true most probably on the time
when Party 1 experienced shaking, rotating and swerving over on V1 and not when V1 was
about to rest from rotating. It is because, may I point out that Party 2 had her statement from
page 7 line 23 and 24 where she said , " as V1 came over to lane #6, the front of V2 collided
with the side of V1. ( see V1 right side view here) (see V1 rear right side view here)
Now, after seeing V1 right side view where Party 2 said V2 collided on, it is next to impossible,
to have V2 colliding ever to the rear right side of V1, in a rotating motion of V1 because V1 as
you know is not a round object.
On the other hand, if the fabricated statement from the concerned officer where he stated that
the front of V2 collided with the right rear of V1 before V1 came to rest after rotating then
the more V2 should have missed the right side of V1 because the impact would push V1 moved
farther away, Besides, please take a closer look again at V1 rear right side and V1 right side did
you see any indication that V2 front intimately kissed V1 from its rear right to the right side,
showing traces of damage from a rotary motion ? None. Hence, the more credible scenario was the
eyewitness account by Party 2 that the area where V2 collided with V1 at the end of the spinning
motion of V1 is on the right side of V1 and absolutely not on the rear side of V1 as contemplated
on by the concerned officer. But who must have caused the massive damage on the rear right side
of V1. Could there be a another mystery car, V3, involved who hit V1 from behind. If there was
then, how could this mystery car V3 ever hit V1 rear right side without having seen by Party 2 ?
Party 2 on her statement never stated nor alluded existence of V3 . Hence, V2 must have been
the culprit. Let us examine the damage incurred by V2 and compare it with V1 by examining
the sketches provided by the concerned officer.
I believe with these sketches you know did change lane and did it unsafely then lied .
Meanwhile, be rest assured that I will support you and ALL STATE INSURANCE to hold
Party 2 responsible.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Antonio L. Buensuceso
