top of page

This is a private communication to Attorney Phil Elbert

Warning: This transmission falls under attorney-client privilege.  If you are not attorney Phil Elbert, our otherwise have permission to view this data,

exit this page immediately.



Phil, The evidence of the collision and the deposition testimony results have bothered me for a long time, and I've not gotten my point across about the value of investigating his texting, I've been too psychologically traumatized by this event to even look at the papers surrounding this incident, now that I finally reviewed his testimony, nothing he says goes with the physical evidence, I believed a vital point was being missed and I have been correct all along, now I'll show this point below clearly with pictures and highlight the obvious facts from the crash that it seems somehow everyone else has missed. 


In the process of trying to show you graphically what was bothering me, I found physical proof the truck driver has lied under oath, and I will furthermore present enough circumstantial evidence to implicate criminal intent by the driver and/or his attorney(s) in this fabricated "sworn" testimony.

Here is what I will show:

(1) The photographic evidence of the police report shows beyond any dispute that the hand drawn sketch of the accident scene was drawn incorrectly. The photos show clearly that the collision occurred in the left/outside lane and not the right/inside lane as the sketch shows.  This changes EVERYTHING in the case for multiple reasons.

(2) The driver testimony you'll read is an elaborate and detailed description that is 100% based on the errant police sketch with the one additional and exceptional false point.  His sworn testimony says he was in the middle of three lanes trapped on both sides by cars, and there was nothing he can do but go on through the red light. However, the police photos will show there is not three traffic lanes but actually only two traffic lanes, the police photo evidence will also show he was in the outside left lane with only a level grassy median to his left and he could have EASILY avoided the crash by the slight turn of his wheel or simply blowing his horn like any human naturally would.

(3) The photographic evidence from the police report shows the driver was not trapped by circumstances as they want us to believe, he was not powerless to avoid the crash, but that he had two easy options to completely prevent the collision by either blowing his air horn or turning his steering wheel approx two inches left; by falsifying his testimony, he hopes to imply he was trapped in the inside lane with nothing he could do, when in fact, just one out of two simple actions would have so easily prevented the entire ordeal, this is deliberate intent to mislead the court, to hide the reality that two vehicles were pulling out in front of him and he did nothing, this represents perjury.

Let the facts speak from here.

bottom of page