Just got ticketed. Advice ASAP please?

[bing_oh]

Lawyers.? Please do not get me going.? ?? They are the true terrorists of this country.? ?

And, I would have pegged you for someone with 15 or better.? I pictured you as about 45, about 6'3" and about 250 with greying hair and a bad attitude.? ?:P? You know, someone like me!

What do you call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.

Why won't a shark eat a lawyer? Professional courtesy.

Sorry...no more lawyer jokes.

8 years full time. 31 years old. 6'01, 210 lbs. My hair isn't graying, but I'm starting to wonder if I'll have any left to go gray. As for the bad attitude...yep, that's accurate. I was recently called the "department a$$hole" by my chief (and I've only been at this department for about 6 months...I've gained a quick reputation ).

[The Pirate]

It happens all the time.  I got so I would either give a warning, or a full shot ticket.  People almost never fight the full shot, but often fight a reduced citation.  I think they feel we are unsure of the speed or something.  

That is incredibly stupid (fighting the break, that is).  Reduced fines are almost easier, because you don't have to go to court to plea down.  I have no problem with fines, but I like to keep my license as points free as possible (Have you priced insurance for a 24 yr. old single male in NY state? ).  As such,  I'm also likely to go to court and try to strike up a deal on a full shot ticket.  When I get a reduced ticket though, it's best to just mail that puppy in and be done with it.



As far as people fighting the reduced charge, are you guys able to reinstate the full citation at their court date?  If I were an LEO, that is exactly what I would do.

[bing_oh]

As far as people fighting the reduced charge, are you guys able to reinstate the full citation at their court date?? If I were an LEO, that is exactly what I would do.

There is no real "full citation." The other (potential) charges aren't usually noted anywhere on the cite. I suppose that, if it's within the legal statute of limitations, we could cite the person for everything, but I can just imagine a defense attorney getting ahold of that. I believe that the phrases "personal vendetta" and "witch hunt" would be used on a regular basis during the trial...

[hounddog]

What do you call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.

Why won't a shark eat a lawyer? Professional courtesy.

Sorry...no more lawyer jokes.

8 years full time. 31 years old. 6'01, 210 lbs. My hair isn't graying, but I'm starting to wonder if I'll have any left to go gray. As for the bad attitude...yep, that's accurate. I was recently called the "department a$$hole" by my chief (and I've only been at this department for about 6 months...I've gained a quick reputation ).

hmmm.  Boy, did I miss that one. 
There are two ways to look at that moniker, the first is to wear it as a badge of honor as I did.  I served as the shift super who would stand by his guys when they were right, and it cost me much in the eyes of management.  However, I was wildly popular among the officers of the department at the time.  I too, was once called the department a**hole for standing up for what was right, not easy.   I once told Randy, when he was promoted, " There will be a time when you must choose whos' side you are on;  the rank and file, or of the administration.  Make your choice a damn good one because once you choose there is no going back." 

Second, is to wear it as a badge of shame.  Here you try to fit in, do what you think the department wants you to do, try to make few waves.  But, you probably will never be happy doing that, at least I could not.  When my second department hired me in as an outside Sgt. I told them how I would do things up front.  They either would have to accept it, or hire someone else.  They hired me, and never once questioned my decisions.  Mostly, I think, because I had more experience than the Chief did!!

Fighting on the side of right is tough, but someone has to do it.  To me, it was about how I would perceive myself when I was done with the job.  And, how God would perceive what I had done.    Sure, I backed the wrong horse a couple of times.  But, in all, I am proud of how I served my officers.  I think you would make a fine large department supervisor.  You need to move on to bigger things, but that is a topic for another day.

[dazzleman]

That is incredibly stupid (fighting the break, that is).? Reduced fines are almost easier, because you don't have to go to court to plea down.? I have no problem with fines, but I like to keep my license as points free as possible (Have you priced insurance for a 24 yr. old single male in NY state? ).? As such,? I'm also likely to go to court and try to strike up a deal on a full shot ticket.? When I get a reduced ticket though, it's best to just mail that puppy in and be done with it.



As far as people fighting the reduced charge, are you guys able to reinstate the full citation at their court date?? If I were an LEO, that is exactly what I would do.

I agree.

For me, getting a break negates the whole reason to go to court.  I never really try for dismissal when I'm guilty of something.  It just goes against me to go in there and lie, and proclaim an innocence I know to be false.  I believe in taking responsibility, not being a weasel.

So I view court for traffic offenses more in terms of negotiating my penalty, and if I can get that reduction from an officer at the time of the traffic stop, why bother with court.  I would also consider fighting a ticket when I got a break as a breach of confidence and trust with the officer who cut me a break.

Unlike some people, I don't expect breaks, and am very grateful when I get them.  The correct response to getting a break is "thank you," not trying to further manipulate the system and put the person who gave you a break in an uncomfortable position.

People do this in many ways other than just traffic cases.  This mentality is a good example of why I become more and more cynical about doing favors for people.

[bing_oh]

hmmm.? Boy, did I miss that one.?
There are two ways to look at that moniker, the first is to wear it as a badge of honor as I did.? I served as the shift super who would stand by his guys when they were right, and it cost me much in the eyes of management.? However, I was wildly popular among the officers of the department at the time.? I too, was once called the department a**hole for standing up for what was right, not easy.? ?I once told Randy, when he was promoted, " There will be a time when you must choose whos' side you are on;? the rank and file, or of the administration.? Make your choice a damn good one because once you choose there is no going back."?

Second, is to wear it as a badge of shame.? Here you try to fit in, do what you think the department wants you to do, try to make few waves.? But, you probably will never be happy doing that, at least I could not.? When my second department hired me in as an outside Sgt. I told them how I would do things up front.? They either would have to accept it, or hire someone else.? They hired me, and never once questioned my decisions.? Mostly, I think, because I had more experience than the Chief did!!

Fighting on the side of right is tough, but someone has to do it.? To me, it was about how I would perceive myself when I was done with the job.? And, how God would perceive what I had done.? ? Sure, I backed the wrong horse a couple of times.? But, in all, I am proud of how I served my officers.? I think you would make a fine large department supervisor.? You need to move on to bigger things, but that is a topic for another day.

I think the reference was more about how I delt with the public than how I was with the other officers. I get along with pretty much everybody I work with (I once made the comment "I don't like people, but cops aren't people," which shocked a few folks around the office until they figured out my sense of humor). The only people I've butted heads with within any department were the ones who had too much ego. They considered me a bit threatening, I suppose, because I told them they weren't any better that anybody else. I'm also loyal to a fault...as long as the person deserves it.

As for my public demeanor, I'm rather...blunt. For the most part, I call em like I see em. So, when it's a PR-ish call, I might not the best choice. When it's time to skip the BS and rock and roll, I'm the guy they send. I think the admin at my current department understands this, and I get the impression that they appreciate how that attitude can be useful on the street. Let's just say that I'm not worried about passing my probation...

Overall, I wear that moniker with pride. And the other guys get a kick out of watching me work.

As for whether or not I'd make much of a supervisor (especially at a bigger PD), that may just be an interesting conversation. I've heard it from people before, but still doubt personally.

[James Young]

Lawyers.? Please do not get me going.? ?? They are the true terrorists of this country.? ?

You complain about me ?attacking? people, and then you write something outrageous like that.  Do you not believe that individuals should be guaranteed those rights that they enjoy as a consequence of natural law and that are enumerated in part in the Bill of Rights?   Are you unaware of the Supreme Court decisions that guarantee that an accused person will be afforded an attorney?  Are you aware of what issues instigated so many of these court cases?

Perhaps you have heard of this:

?In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.?  US Constitution, Sixth Amendment, capitalization in the original, emphasis added by JY.

Lawyers are ?terrorists? because they help the people protect themselves against abuses by the state?  Are they ?terrorists? because they want to uphold the laws of the land?  Are they instilling fear through intimidation or by threat of damage?

Tell us exactly why attorneys are ?terrorists.? 

[hounddog]

You complain about me ?attacking? people, and then you write something outrageous like that.? Do you not believe that individuals should be guaranteed those rights that they enjoy as a consequence of natural law and that are enumerated in part in the Bill of Rights?? ?Are you unaware of the Supreme Court decisions that guarantee that an accused person will be afforded an attorney?? Are you aware of what issues instigated so many of these court cases?

Perhaps you have heard of this:

?In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.?? US Constitution, Sixth Amendment, capitalization in the original, emphasis added by JY.

Lawyers are ?terrorists? because they help the people protect themselves against abuses by the state?? Are they ?terrorists? because they want to uphold the laws of the land?? Are they instilling fear through intimidation or by threat of damage?

Tell us exactly why attorneys are ?terrorists.??

? ?
The reasonable man would see the difference between "lawyers" (all incompassing group) and people (individuals) in your post.

Lawyers are terrorists simply because they flood the courts with frivilous lawsiuts designed only to make them money, and in the process they cause far far far more harm to our society than they ever do good.? They also help to circumvent the very justice system they have sworn an oath to God to serve.? A huge majority of criminal court cases are plead to the lowest common crimes because of worthless lawyers on both sides of the bench only want the fees and salaries, and that includes most judges who encourage these backroom dealings.? It makes a mockery of the justice system, where victims can not find justice, and the lawyers are the ones who win.?

The reason most people can not afford health care is doctors can barely afford liability insurance is because of lowlife lawyers, and their frivilous lawsuits.? They have to pass on those expenses to me and you and everyone else.? Lawyers will take any case they feel they can make a buck; like the lawyer who took the fat assed coach at Notre Dame; Charlie "jabba the hut" Weiss's case.? He was warned about possible complications, signed a paper acknowledging that he was warned and understood those warnings, and had the surgery to "bypass" his stomach.? He ended up with complications as the doctor explained and nearly died, as was explained.? But, now a worthless lowlife lawyer is after the medical insurance, and the liar Weiss is still fat.?

And, there is a cavernous difference between talking about lawyers, and making snide and insulting remarks directed at individuals.? Then again.... ahh never mind.? I am certain you will have one of your incredibly long winded replies telling me how it is the corrupt police who issue tickets for no reason at all, except for the money grab (which by the way, you have only mentioned a very scant few rather than the thousands you claim) and that they are the problem with America and there is no other group who causes more harm than good blah blah blah blah.....no matter what I say.

[TurboDan]

I am not allowed to drive anymore.  Thanks for bringing up a sore subject.     Seriously, I used to only go about 5-10 over about 90% of the time.  Everyone speeds, its a matter of daily life.  But, if you do not wish a summons simply behave like it.  The last time I got pulled over was last summer on my way up north.  I was doing 81 in a 70 Zone on I-75 around the point where 75 and I-69 meet.  It was during a Click-it-or-Ticket campaign.  I got a no seatbelt ticket, but you did not hear me bitch and piss and moan about it did you?  No, I paid it like a man and moved on with my life.  I still have the receipt, and can scan it in and email it to anyone who wishes to see it.

Yeah, seems the seat belt ticket is now the de facto "cutting you a break" ticket.  My friend went the wrong way down a one-way street by mistake, and the officer gave him a seat belt ticket (no points, only $46) instead of the usual ticket they give for that, which carries points and a $150 fine.

[hounddog]

Yeah, seems the seat belt ticket is now the de facto "cutting you a break" ticket.? My friend went the wrong way down a one-way street by mistake, and the officer gave him a seat belt ticket (no points, only $46) instead of the usual ticket they give for that, which carries points and a $150 fine.

Is it wrong, or is it just a satisfactory 'out' for both parties?  I honestly do not know, and being out of LE, not sure I am one to judge it. 

[TurboDan]

Is it wrong, or is it just a satisfactory 'out' for both parties?  I honestly do not know, and being out of LE, not sure I am one to judge it. 

Eh, I guess so.  When my friend got pulled over, it was for a DUI stop, since they set up there trying to get drunks.  He hadn't had anything to drink, so personally, I thought they could've just let him go since it was an honest mistake (the streets are actually pretty confusing where this was).  But, if they MUST give a ticket, it seems like the seat-belt violation ticket is pretty fair.  A no-points, low-cost option is always better than anything carrying points.  My friend didn't complain, since he DID make an error while driving.  I wouldn't have complained either, personally.

I would venture a guess that most people would accept even a hefty fine readily if it meant no points.  Not because they're afraid of losing their license because of points (nobody I've known in my entire life has ever come even close), but the way the insurance game is set up, one mistake, one time, could cost you thousands of dollars for multiple YEARS.  I think people would be much more likely to accept responsibility if there wasn't the ridiculous penalties insurance companies levy on anyone who gets a ticket.

[dazzleman]

Is it wrong, or is it just a satisfactory 'out' for both parties?? I honestly do not know, and being out of LE, not sure I am one to judge it.?

It's not black and white.  Under the right circumstances, I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

Speaking of tickets, I think I have a guardian angel to protect me from getting them lately.  Earlier today, I was going to the supermarket.  I was driving a nice open road with a 35 mph speed limit.  I was doing about 50 mph.  A school bus turned out in front of me and forced me to slow down.  Just past that point, there was a speedtrap set up, with 4-5 police cars pulling people over for speeding and handing out tickets.  If that bus hadn't turned out in front of me, I'd almost surely be on here right now talking about how I'm the latest spinner to get busted.  But once again, I was saved.  It's happened a number of times.  That's one reason I never complain when I do get nailed; I've been lucky so many times.

BTW hounddog, I think you're basically right about lawyers in general.  What you say about the effect of lawyers on the costs of health care is particularly true.

[dazzleman]

Eh, I guess so.? When my friend got pulled over, it was for a DUI stop, since they set up there trying to get drunks.? He hadn't had anything to drink, so personally, I thought they could've just let him go since it was an honest mistake (the streets are actually pretty confusing where this was).? But, if they MUST give a ticket, it seems like the seat-belt violation ticket is pretty fair.? A no-points, low-cost option is always better than anything carrying points.? My friend didn't complain, since he DID make an error while driving.? I wouldn't have complained either, personally.

I would venture a guess that most people would accept even a hefty fine readily if it meant no points.? Not because they're afraid of losing their license because of points (nobody I've known in my entire life has ever come even close), but the way the insurance game is set up, one mistake, one time, could cost you thousands of dollars for multiple YEARS.? I think people would be much more likely to accept responsibility if there wasn't the ridiculous penalties insurance companies levy on anyone who gets a ticket.

Dan, I agree that a higher fine is preferable to a marked record that results in higher insurance.  The higher insurance rates can last for 3 years, and cost a lot more than a hefty fine would have cost.

So I think the option of keeping minor offenses off the driving records is OK, but precisely because the costs of a bad driving record are a more effective deterrent than a one-time fine, I oppose keeping more serious offenses off driving records.

New Jersey has a f$&ked up insurance system, which is typical of what happens whenever the government gets involved to try to make things more "fair" (which in government speak, means that the responsible pay for the irresponsible).  In my own experience, tickets have never increased my insurance rates.  What I have found is that in some states at least, insurance companies check your driving record when they first write the policy, and when you put in a claim.  Therefore, so long as you don't have to switch insurance companies while you have a marked driving record or put in a claim during that period, you can get tickets in some places and fly under the radar without an insurance premium increase.  That's at least how it's worked out for me so far.

[Catman]

Ya know, after 8 years of doing this job, I'm getting a very similar attitude. I rarely take what happens on the job personally, but it just flat-out pisses me off when somebody fights a ticket that was a break (and they KNEW it was a break) in the first place. I had one where a drunken idiot did a turf job though a yard and I didn't find him till the next day. He got popped for Reckless Op (a pretty serious offense, admittedly), but got away with the DUI and I didn't criminally charge him for the Criminal Damaging to the yard. I was LIVID when the little bastard got a reduced charge from the prosecutor on the one charge he did get.

I learned after a few years not to cut breaks.  Either it comes to fruition as an insult to your consideration or it literally bites you in the ass.  Bottom line is you'll get some heat for doing your job sometimes but you can't get disciplined for it.

[James Young]

hounddog writes:

The reasonable man would see the difference between "lawyers" (all incompassing group) and people (individuals) in your post.

Perhaps I am unreasonable but I quoted exactly what you said.? Perhaps you believe it is acceptable to revile a group of people but not acceptable to criticize individuals.? This is further complicated by allegations about the group that are mythical at best, defamatory at worst as compared to the accuracy of any descriptions assigned to the individuals.? I don?t care to retrace those steps right now because it just isn?t worth it.

Lawyers are terrorists simply because they flood the courts with frivilous lawsiuts designed only to make them money, and in the process they cause far far far more harm to our society than they ever do good.

This is false, little more than a radical right mythology foisted on the public as part of an effort to sell ?tort reform? to the public as a solution to a problem that does not exist.? The real goal of that effort is to assure increased profits for companies or professionals who provide unsafe or unsatisfactory products to the public.?

They also help to circumvent the very justice system they have sworn an oath to God to serve.? A huge majority of criminal court cases are plead to the lowest common crimes because of worthless lawyers on both sides of the bench only want the fees and salaries, and that includes most judges who encourage these backroom dealings.? It makes a mockery of the justice system, where victims can not find justice, and the lawyers are the ones who win.

Society has an interest in keeping people out of prison because prison costs so much.? A year in a state pen costs more than a year?s tuition at Harvard, and that doesn?t even begin to quantify the opportunity costs.? If it takes lawyers ? operating on opposing sides ? to work that out, then so be it.

From p 89 of April 97 Michigan Bar Journal
?I do solemnly swear or affirm:
(1) I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Michigan;
(2) I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers;
(3) I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceeding which shall appear to me to be unjust, nor any defense except such as I believe to be honestly debatable under the law of the land;
(4) I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law;
(5) I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my client, and will accept no compensation in connection with my client's business except with my client's knowledge and approval;
(6) I will abstain from all offensive personality, and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged;
(7) I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed, or delay any cause for lucre or malice;
(8) I will in all other respects conduct myself personally and professionally in conformity with the high standards of conduct imposed on members of the bar as conditions for the privilege to practice law in this state.

There is no oath to god, only to the two Constitutions.? I especially like #1 and #3 since they affirm focus and preclude junk cases, respectively.

The reason most people can not afford health care is doctors can barely afford liability insurance is because of lowlife lawyers, and their frivilous lawsuits.? They have to pass on those expenses to me and you and everyone else.

That?s unsupportable nonsense, again part of the radical right mythology.? Healthcare costs so much because there is an entire layer of administrative costs, including multi-million dollar bonuses, and billions in profit that we call ?the insurance industry,? that provides absolutely no healthcare service between the healthcare providers and the patients.? Insurance mitigates risk but provides no healthcare service; healthcare helps people get and stay well and productive.

Lawyers will take any case they feel they can make a buck. . .

Shocking to believe that attorneys would actually like to get paid for providing their service.? ?

And, there is a cavernous difference between talking about lawyers, and making snide and insulting remarks directed at individuals.

We enjoy no right to not be insulted.? It goes with the territory that we call life; get over it.? If I?m wrong, point it out, give your case with your evidence and your critical analysis.? If you?re going to compete in the marketplace of ideas, you can?t use discredited ideas.

The following is not a personal attack but an observation.? It doesn?t demean you but describes where you are.

You are at a very distinct disadvantage in a forum such as this, through no fault of your own.? I have quoted Mark Twain several times: ?It ain?t what you don?t know that gets you into trouble; it?s what your know for sure that just ain?t so.?? You have been burdened by institutional behavior and institutional knowledge for your entire career.? That?s just a fact of life in the institutions surrounding traffic safety, because they aggressively protect their turf because there is so much money? and political power at stake.? Only now are we discovering how much of that knowledge was developed or molded to protect the institution rather than reveal the truth. ¹ So, your problem is to unlearn what you thought you knew.?

Your other issue is that traffic safety is a huge system extending well beyond any single discipline, certainly beyond any single jurisdiction.

I have an advantage in that I don't take any of this personally.

I am certain you will have one of your incredibly long winded replies.....no matter what I say.

It is a complex issue and requires complex multidisciplinary answers.? Unlike modern media, we cannot afford to answer encyclopedic questions with sound-bite responses.? However, there is a way to prevent all this:? don?t post things that are wrong.?

¹? Think about how the Catholic Church protected priests from investigation and charges of child abuse, classic institutional behavior.

[dazzleman]

You're taking this a little too seriously James.   You need a hobby.

[James Young]

You're taking this a little too seriously James. ? You need a hobby.

This is my hobby.  What could be more fun than showing that the emperor has no clothes?   

[bing_oh]

You're taking this a little too seriously James. ? You need a hobby.

Ah, he just needs to lighten up a little. Maybe a good laugh...

Q: Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, an honest lawyer and an old drunk are walking down a street together when they simultaneously spot a hundred-dollar bill. Who gets it?
A: The old drunk, of course, the other three are mythological creatures.

Q: What's the best thing to get a lawyer in the hospital?
A: A nurse who believes in euthanasia.

Q: What's the difference between a trampoline and a lawyer?
A: You take off your shoes to jump on a trampoline.

Q: Why is it that New Jersey got all the toxic waste dumps and California got all the lawyers?
A: New Jersey got first choice.

Q: What's black and brown and looks good on a lawyer?
A: A doberman.

Q: What do you call five lawyers skydiving from an airplane?
A: Skeet.

Q: What do you throw a drowning lawyer?
A: His partners.

And, because this IS a car message board...

Q: What's the defintion of mixed emotions?
A: Seeing your lawyer drive off the cliff in your new Mercedes.

I could do this all day.

[hounddog]

This is my hobby.? What could be more fun than showing that the emperor has no clothes?? ?

Well, for a man who must be in his 70's or older, I would think you would take up a REAL hobby. 

[The Pirate]

Ah, he just needs to lighten up a little. Maybe a good laugh...

I could do this all day.

What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?








A good start.




Edit:  D'oh, this one was already posted. 

[hounddog]

hounddog writes:

Perhaps I am unreasonable but I quoted exactly what you said.? Perhaps you believe it is acceptable to revile a group of people but not acceptable to criticize individuals.? This is further complicated by allegations about the group that are mythical at best, defamatory at worst as compared to the accuracy of any descriptions assigned to the individuals.? I don?t care to retrace those steps right now because it just isn?t worth it.

This is false, little more than a radical right mythology foisted on the public as part of an effort to sell ?tort reform? to the public as a solution to a problem that does not exist.? The real goal of that effort is to assure increased profits for companies or professionals who provide unsafe or unsatisfactory products to the public.?


Society has an interest in keeping people out of prison because prison costs so much.? A year in a state pen costs more than a year?s tuition at Harvard, and that doesn?t even begin to quantify the opportunity costs.? If it takes lawyers ? operating on opposing sides ? to work that out, then so be it.

From p 89 of April 97 Michigan Bar Journal
?I do solemnly swear or affirm:
(1) I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Michigan;
(2) I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers;
(3) I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceeding which shall appear to me to be unjust, nor any defense except such as I believe to be honestly debatable under the law of the land;
(4) I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law;
(5) I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my client, and will accept no compensation in connection with my client's business except with my client's knowledge and approval;
(6) I will abstain from all offensive personality, and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged;
(7) I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed, or delay any cause for lucre or malice;
(8) I will in all other respects conduct myself personally and professionally in conformity with the high standards of conduct imposed on members of the bar as conditions for the privilege to practice law in this state.

There is no oath to god, only to the two Constitutions.? I especially like #1 and #3 since they affirm focus and preclude junk cases, respectively.

That?s unsupportable nonsense, again part of the radical right mythology.? Healthcare costs so much because there is an entire layer of administrative costs, including multi-million dollar bonuses, and billions in profit that we call ?the insurance industry,? that provides absolutely no healthcare service between the healthcare providers and the patients.? Insurance mitigates risk but provides no healthcare service; healthcare helps people get and stay well and productive.

Shocking to believe that attorneys would actually like to get paid for providing their service.? ?


We enjoy no right to not be insulted.? It goes with the territory that we call life; get over it.? If I?m wrong, point it out, give your case with your evidence and your critical analysis.? If you?re going to compete in the marketplace of ideas, you can?t use discredited ideas.

The following is not a personal attack but an observation.? It doesn?t demean you but describes where you are.

You are at a very distinct disadvantage in a forum such as this, through no fault of your own.? I have quoted Mark Twain several times: ?It ain?t what you don?t know that gets you into trouble; it?s what your know for sure that just ain?t so.?? You have been burdened by institutional behavior and institutional knowledge for your entire career.? That?s just a fact of life in the institutions surrounding traffic safety, because they aggressively protect their turf because there is so much money? and political power at stake.? Only now are we discovering how much of that knowledge was developed or molded to protect the institution rather than reveal the truth. ¹ So, your problem is to unlearn what you thought you knew.?

Your other issue is that traffic safety is a huge system extending well beyond any single discipline, certainly beyond any single jurisdiction.

I have an advantage in that I don't take any of this personally.

It is a complex issue and requires complex multidisciplinary answers.? Unlike modern media, we cannot afford to answer encyclopedic questions with sound-bite responses.? However, there is a way to prevent all this:? don?t post things that are wrong.?

¹? Think about how the Catholic Church protected priests from investigation and charges of child abuse, classic institutional behavior.

I would like some proof that what I wrote was false.? And, not from the Air America or other far left sites.? And, everyone in this country KNOWS about frivilous lawsuits, and their effects on our society.? If you cose to believe the radical left b.s. and bury your head in the sand,? I am sorry for you.? And, at the end of the oath, they say "So help me, God."? Just like police officers, just like doctors, just like judges, just like....oh never mind.? You are right about everything, James.? You seem to think you know everything, and you are a legend in your own mind.? ? ?


In my very last response to you; You are also a victim, James.? The far left has given you poison, and you drank it in.? You are a victim of the liberal institution as well, you just are not introspective enough to see it.? ? And, quoting Twain does not make your points and arguments better or more righteous, it just means that you are long winded.?

[dazzleman]

You guys bicker so much you ought to just get married to each other....

[hounddog]

Nope, I am completely done with him and his...posts. 

[dazzleman]

Nope, I am completely done with him and his...posts.?

I hate to see a beautiful relationship end.....

[James Young]

hounddog writes:

Well, for a man who must be in his 70's or older, I would think you would take up a REAL hobby.

I will be 62 next month.? Remember, I?ve been fighting this battle since I was 12.   

I am retired but since my family obligations (and my two other rehab houses) are complete, I?m ready to unretire.?

I am working on a continuing reading program through Harvard University and I?ve considered returning to home and school (University of Texas at Austin) to pursue a Ph.D. but I?m probably a little old for that.

I do travel and I?m going to Las Vegas and California next week.?

[James Young]

hounddog writes:

I would like some proof that what I wrote was false.

Sorry, that?s not the way academic debate works.  You are the one who asserted:

?   Lawyers are terrorists
?   Lawyers swear an oath to god
?   Lawyers file frivolous law suits and imply that is all they do
?   That healthcare costs so much because lawyers file unsubstantiated cases against doctors who cannot then afford malpractice insurance

The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.  You need to prove them.  Proving a negative is difficult.  Consider, for example, trying to prove that you did not sacrifice and eat a live chicken last week. 

And, everyone in this country KNOWS about frivilous lawsuits, and their effects on our society.

That ?knowledge? is what gets so many into trouble because it is not supported by verifiable and quantifiable fact.  They see the news reports of the goofy judge who sued a dry cleaner for $50+ million because they lost his pants.  That case was thrown out.  On the other hand, they choose to ignore the decision by Ford that chose to pay injury and death benefits rather than recall and fix the Pinto gas tank.  GM had a very similar case with their side-saddle tanks on the GMC pickup.  Even the infamous McDonald?s coffee case:  they ignored repeated warnings and then disdained a settlement, choosing to go to court, where they had their ass handed to them. 

What we ?know? about frivolous lawsuits is dangerous because it is so wrong.

If you [choose] to believe the radical left b.s. and bury your head in the sand,  I am sorry for you.

I choose to believe the truth and actively work to seek it out and extract it from the ocean  of data and allegations.  Of course, the truth has a well-known left-leaning bias.

You are right about everything, James.  You seem to think you know everything, and you are a legend in your own mind. 

Being correct is important to me and I work very diligently to keep what I say and post to be correct and my philosophical opinions supportable.  If I discover that something I previously thought true is not, then I modify my belief.  Obviously, one cannot ever know everything but I do take some personal price in being able to extract information and synthesize it with other known information and theories into a coherent body of work.  A very hard lesson that I have learned is that the truth is not always what we think it is much less what we hope it to be. 

And, quoting Twain does not make your points and arguments better or more righteous, it just means that you are long winded.

Twain was a speaker of uncomfortable truths, succinctly stated.  I use his words because they reveal a truth much better than my own.