The US Coast Guard has filed an appeal brief in the matter of USCG v. Solomon. In this case at the Trial, the expert witness of the USCG- Dr. Hani Khella- stated that urinary creatinine would only decrease in "volcano" and that a week in the desert would not alter urinary creatinine.
The USCG expert, Khella, further stated that there is no way that creatinine would degrees in temperatures less than 300 degrees Celsius. Dr. Khella, apparently getting his information from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatinine testified in opposition to the number. Why he made such a miscalculation of truth, we will never know.
At the trial on the matter, it was admitted that the urine sample was in the desert for over a week. Simone Solomon presented two experts who testified at trial that urinary creatinine would degrade at temperatures that were natrually occurring in the desert, temperatures of 115 degrees or less.
The USCG has now, upon appeal, introduced for the first time the idea that not only was her urine sample out of whack, but that somehow she intended to defraud the system. Also on appeal, the USCG has introduced for the first time, the accusation that Simone Solomon produced a urine sample by use of a prosthetic device. (This despite an absence of nitrates from the sample and a sample that was "in range" temperature wise.)
The USCG has also objected to the amicus brief of Dr. Roger Bertholf, arguing that this brief should have been produced at trial. This despite the fact that Ms. Solomon had two experts testify on her behalf on this very point at trial! The USCG seems to fail to understand what an Amicus Curiae is.
The USCG seems be recycling their work from another appeal that is currently pending, that of the USCG v. Carroll, http://www.uscg.mil/alj/decisions/2012/SR-2012-03%20Carroll.pdf. Carroll, a completely unrelated Defendant, was represented at trial by Vuk S. Vujasinovic, Esq., Kenneth B. Fenelon, Jr., Esq., Vujasinovic & Beckcom, P.L.L.C. I have not spoken to them regarding their currently pending appeal. The USCG appealed Carroll when they were dissatisfied with a 24 month suspension when Carroll was caught using a prosthetic device.
By doing so, they have embarrassed themselves and the idea behind an appeal. They have shown that Ms. Solomon is not a priority. They have also shown that they did not read the transcripts of the case. (Transcript 1 - Transcript 2).
Read the Coast Guard appeal brief that they botched and just recycled from Carroll:
Read the response to Ms. Solomon's brief, WHERE THE USCG FINALLY ADMITS THAT CREATININE CAN DEGRADE IN TEMPERATURES UNDER 300 DEGREES CELSIUS
The USCG expert, Khella, further stated that there is no way that creatinine would degrees in temperatures less than 300 degrees Celsius. Dr. Khella, apparently getting his information from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatinine testified in opposition to the number. Why he made such a miscalculation of truth, we will never know.
At the trial on the matter, it was admitted that the urine sample was in the desert for over a week. Simone Solomon presented two experts who testified at trial that urinary creatinine would degrade at temperatures that were natrually occurring in the desert, temperatures of 115 degrees or less.
The USCG has now, upon appeal, introduced for the first time the idea that not only was her urine sample out of whack, but that somehow she intended to defraud the system. Also on appeal, the USCG has introduced for the first time, the accusation that Simone Solomon produced a urine sample by use of a prosthetic device. (This despite an absence of nitrates from the sample and a sample that was "in range" temperature wise.)
The USCG has also objected to the amicus brief of Dr. Roger Bertholf, arguing that this brief should have been produced at trial. This despite the fact that Ms. Solomon had two experts testify on her behalf on this very point at trial! The USCG seems to fail to understand what an Amicus Curiae is.
The USCG seems be recycling their work from another appeal that is currently pending, that of the USCG v. Carroll, http://www.uscg.mil/alj/decisions/2012/SR-2012-03%20Carroll.pdf. Carroll, a completely unrelated Defendant, was represented at trial by Vuk S. Vujasinovic, Esq., Kenneth B. Fenelon, Jr., Esq., Vujasinovic & Beckcom, P.L.L.C. I have not spoken to them regarding their currently pending appeal. The USCG appealed Carroll when they were dissatisfied with a 24 month suspension when Carroll was caught using a prosthetic device.
By doing so, they have embarrassed themselves and the idea behind an appeal. They have shown that Ms. Solomon is not a priority. They have also shown that they did not read the transcripts of the case. (Transcript 1 - Transcript 2).
Read the Coast Guard appeal brief that they botched and just recycled from Carroll:
Read the response to Ms. Solomon's brief, WHERE THE USCG FINALLY ADMITS THAT CREATININE CAN DEGRADE IN TEMPERATURES UNDER 300 DEGREES CELSIUS
Comments
Post a Comment