WELCOME GUEST  |  LOG IN
hamptons dealership, luxury, Southampton
27east.com

15 Comments by karmasabitch


Kabot DWI hearing kicks off, will resume Tuesday

give me a break!!!! Why did she ask them if they knew who she was and then stated that "I am Linda Kabot" What does that matter....she was trying to use her "status" as power...that is disgusting...." Jul 9, 10 11:00 AM

who cares if they called the pope! If she wasn't drunk she wouldn't have been arressted! It doesn't matter who anyone called" Jul 13, 10 11:39 AM

who cares if they called the pope! If she wasn't drunk she wouldn't have been arressted! It doesn't matter who anyone called" Jul 13, 10 11:41 AM

Set up? Did they force her to drink and drive so the can catch her...you are all missing the fact that she was drunk...why refuse the breath test...there was no SET UP " Jul 13, 10 11:45 AM

again..if she was drinking and driving which she was...why does it matter who called who...if i saw someone drinking at a bar or party or anywere iand then get in a car i would call the police too! What if she killed someone? What if they let her go because she was "linda Kabot town supervisor" and then she killed someone...you would blame the cops for that too!


" Jul 13, 10 11:51 AM

I am stating the facts from the case she didn't take a breath test...and my opinion is who cares who anyone called if she didnt have anything to hid then she should have all the tests...what am i stating that is not already known?" Jul 13, 10 7:10 PM

Kabot's pre-trial hearing will continue next week

it would be very hard to believe that any police officer would subject themselves to what they had to know would be this type of scrutiny (they were arresting the sitting town supervisor). These officers are from the WHB police, of which Linda Kabot had no control or influence, as the Village of WHB has their own board, and mayor who is the defacto police commisioner. To think that these cops would risk their careers, reputations and livliehoods is ridiculous. These officers have families to support and would never jeapordize the safety and security of their wives and children to do another union a "favor". Think about this for what it is, everyone loves a "conspiracy theory", but this is nothing more than an ordinary dwi arrest of a self-important person, which is business as usual in the hamptons." Jul 14, 10 11:25 PM

If you look at any case, anywhere in any town, village or state, there are mistakes made. A cop writes the wrong speed on a ticket, forgets to sign a form, these things happen. Just like in any of our professions, mistakes are made. Banjack who appears to be from Port Jefferson, has apparently never made a mistake. I believe that no matter how much money you are paid, (look at the BP engineers in the Gulf, I'm sure they make more than these police officers) you are entitled to make a mistake. So please jack, go back to Port Jeff, and leave out village business to our village residents. " Jul 15, 10 11:55 AM

To correct a mistake on this blog, driving is a priveledge, not a right as bobby said. You are extended the priveledge to operate a motor vehicle in the state of new york by the commissioner of the department of motor vehicles. You must pass a written test, driving test and an eye exam to have this priveledge. If this was a right, you would not need to do any of these things. That is why your priveledge to operate a motor vehicle can be suspended or revoked by the commissioner for various offenses. Please research the vehicle and traffic law before making statements, however you are entitled to make a mistake,and thank you for allowing me the opprotunity to correct you" Jul 15, 10 11:59 AM

Bobby research new york state vehicle and traffic law section 1192-3. this is driving while intoxicated based on an officers observations, which are legally sufficent. Refusing a pre-screen breath test, a roadside test given to determine an approximate level of intoxication, is a petty offense, better known as a traffic violation. Much the same as a speeding ticket, which is in lieu of an arrest. If you refuse the pre screen roadside breath test you will be arrested, and you will lose your license at the dmv hearing. section 1194-1b of the vehicle and traffic law requires you to take this test when asked by a police officer. This can be used as prima facia evidence against you at the dmv hearing and will result in revocation of your priveledge to operate a motor vehicle in nys. You appear to be a know it all who has no concept of the legal system. You put down other individuals and are incorrect with all of your legal opinions, please sir, pick up a book before you reply, it would be in your best interest." Jul 15, 10 12:08 PM

I believe you should change your name to stop the nonsense, Read NYS vehicle and traffic law section 501 regarding issuance and maintenance of driver's licenses. Then skip down to section 510, regarding how and why your priveledge can be suspended or revoked under section 511. I'll put it i terms you can understand, your driver's license expires. when you meet the requirements your priveledge is re-instated. A right, as you say, would never expire. Refusal to submit to a chemical test under section 1194 of the vtl leads to a revocation of your driver's license, not a suspension. A field test refusal, under section 1194 1b, will give an officer the right to arrest you on the spot. Please read the law!! As for the next three, of your concerns, police departments are moving toward putting video cameras in police cars to show that the officers did nothing wrong and provide evidence for conviction. Think about this?? Why is Mr. Keahon fighting so hard to get the video tossed?? Maybe because the cops were right, and Linda Kabot was wrong. Come on, wake up sir." Jul 15, 10 7:12 PM

Two point sfor you to consider. If there was a major issue that occured during the stopping of the videotape, don't you think that it would have been adressed by Mr. keahon. That would seem to help his cause of alleged police corrupition. He has to date, made no accusations of misconduct by these officers, only alleging that they did not file the chief's procedures. Here is a question, have any of you ever seen a police officer without his or her 8 point cap on? These is a standing order in many police depts, SHT, NYSP, many villages, etc that your hat is always on when you are out in public. These officers aren't following the chief's order to the letter, where is the concern over this matter. Have you ever seen a police officer chewing gum in uniform, smoking, hands in pockets?? Please people, there was apparently a valid reason to turn the video off. They were about to proceed with the lawful arrest of the sht supervisor and wanted to be sure that their times and observations were correct and accurate. Apparently they were, because Mr. Keahon is fighting tooth and nail to get the video tossed." Jul 18, 10 1:03 PM

Answer me this, how did Mr. Keahon get an internal Dept memo regarding video cameras that was apparently only distributed to employees?? Sounds like the issue of him representing both linda kabot and officers pessapane and bruetsch has finally been shown to be a CONFLICT OF INTEREST!!! " Jul 18, 10 1:06 PM

say whatever you like, the video is evidence of what happened that night. If Keahon wants to argue the point that the video was turned off, let him. After it is played for all to see. But as i said before. HE DOES NOT WANT THE JURY TO SEE THE VIDEO! I take this to mean it's not Linda's best performance. If any of my clients were stone cold sober, did not commit any traffic violations, were polite, took all field tests and performed well, i would play the video and rest my case." Jul 18, 10 6:25 PM

Frank, i agree, maybe PBR has been drinking a few PBR's himself. I believe that one of the arresting officers has said that the camera was turned off purely to verify the time of the stop. This b. Not knowieing a critical point, had Ms. kabot submitted to the pre-screen breath tests as required by NYS vehicle and traffic law 1194-1b. An officer is directed to wait twenty (20) minutes from the point of first contact to ensure that the subject has not drank any alcohol, smoked, chewed gum, etc. This is to be sure that all residual mouth alcohol has dissapated from the mouth, ensuring that the sample would be a true and accurate representation of the subjects blood alcohol concentration at that time. The officers had no idea that linda kabot was going to refuse the test, thereby making the time check irrelevant. I feel that this small diversion from protocol was and still is justifiable, seeing that the sitting sht supervisor was the subject being tested. Once again, where are the allegations of misconduct during the "missing footage" if there are none, let us move on, pick a jury and get this resolved. " Jul 19, 10 12:30 AM