UPDATE: 2-0 on tickets

[dazzleman]

In New Jersey, there's an automatic "buy out" you can use once every three or five, years -- I forget what it is. You can call the local court and simply request it, and they will give it to you. It's very expensive (though less than what Cougs paid) and it carries no points, no "insurance points," no nothing.

It's all about the money.

[hotrodalex]

Uh...

But I will give a 'B' for effort.

I got a 'B' from Cougs? I feel so honored. My life is complete.

[dazzleman]

I got a 'B' from Cougs? I feel so honored. My life is complete.

Did you appear in court for your speeder?

[hotrodalex]

Did you appear in court for your speeder?

Nope. Just paid and signed up for traffic school to erase it from my record.

[hounddog]

I was with you until the last paragraph. Just because someone loses in court doesn't mean they were acting in bad faith or didn't have a legitimate argument behind their case. Paying a reasonable fee for court costs seems fair, not increasing the cost of the penalty. In doing that, you're essentially stripping away a person's constitutional right to confront his accuser by making it too expensive, potentially, to do so if the case results in a loss.

I was referring to a system in which you can cause court action to occur, but not have to be present during the actions.

That just smacks of feel-good law making.

[GoCougs]

Notice arrived today:

"This letter confirms that the above infraction was dismissed in the Bellevue City District Court today. The Judge dismissed this infraction because the City did not meet their burden of proof after our motions to suppress were granted."

[TurboDan]

I was referring to a system in which you can cause court action to occur, but not have to be present during the actions.

That just smacks of feel-good law making.

Ahh, ok. That I agree with 100%.

[MaxPower]

Notice arrived today:

"This letter confirms that the above infraction was dismissed in the Bellevue City District Court today. The Judge dismissed this infraction because the City did not meet their burden of proof after our motions to suppress were granted."

Would love to know what was suppressed and why.

[bing_oh]

Would love to know what was suppressed and why.

On an HOV lane violation, it could only have been the reason for the stop. If I were to guess, I'd say one of the state's witnesses (probably the officer) didn't show for the supression hearing and the supression was granted out of hand by the court. Filing as many stupid and frivilous motions as possible is a common tactic for some lawyers, all in the hopes that a witness for the prosecution won't show for one hearing or another and the case will be dismissed. Thank laywers like that for ungodly high attorney fees and court costs.

[omicron]

Thank goodness we don't have ghastly HOV lanes here. Fewer lanes for individuals, and the state demanding I spend time with other people in the car at some ungodly hour of the morning with their unnecessary jibber-jabber? Yecch.

[GoCougs]

Would love to know what was suppressed and why.

I sent her an email...

[dazzleman]

On an HOV lane violation, it could only have been the reason for the stop. If I were to guess, I'd say one of the state's witnesses (probably the officer) didn't show for the supression hearing and the supression was granted out of hand by the court. Filing as many stupid and frivilous motions as possible is a common tactic for some lawyers, all in the hopes that a witness for the prosecution won't show for one hearing or another and the case will be dismissed. Thank laywers like that for ungodly high attorney fees and court costs.

It's a flawed and weak system that is easy for those who know it well to manipulate to their own (illegitimate) advantage.

[GoCougs]

On an HOV lane violation, it could only have been the reason for the stop. If I were to guess, I'd say one of the state's witnesses (probably the officer) didn't show for the supression hearing and the supression was granted out of hand by the court. Filing as many stupid and frivilous motions as possible is a common tactic for some lawyers, all in the hopes that a witness for the prosecution won't show for one hearing or another and the case will be dismissed. Thank laywers like that for ungodly high attorney fees and court costs.

It's a flawed and weak system that is easy for those who know it well to manipulate to their own (illegitimate) advantage.

So it should be a court system whereby the accused can't challenge evidence, witnesses, etc., and otherwise that the state's case is presumed irrefutable and unchallengeable? Again, you guys are implying a non-court court system.

That traffic tickets are so easy to beat doesn't show that the court system is flawed and weak IMO it shows the illegitimacy of traffic court and non-material/non-criminal traffic enforcement in general.

[bing_oh]

So it should be a court system whereby the accused can't challenge evidence, witnesses, etc., and otherwise that the state's case is presumed irrefutable and unchallengeable? Again, you guys are implying a non-court court system.

That traffic tickets are so easy to beat doesn't show that the court system is flawed and weak IMO it shows the illegitimacy of traffic court and non-material/non-criminal traffic enforcement in general.

Did I say that? Nope. Put away your straw man and pull your hand out of my ass...I'm not a ventriloquist's dummy (not to mention I can see your lips moving).

Something like a traffic ticket will rarely need a suppression hearing. Lawyers who file motions to suppress on all violations are just manipulating the system in the hopes that a witness for the prosecution will forget to show up and the charges will be dropped and we all know it...even the lawyers who do it. Don't play it like these lawyers are just out to give their clients a fair shake and prevent judicial injustice. Even YOU admitted that you're guilty as sin. In a totally just system, you would have taken your lumps or been rightfully convicted. In the current system, you paid enough to some schyster lawyer who manipulated the system and got a guilty person (you) off of a legitimate charge.

[GoCougs]

Did I say that? Nope. Put away your straw man and pull your hand out of my ass...I'm not a ventriloquist's dummy (not to mention I can see your lips moving).

Something like a traffic ticket will rarely need a suppression hearing. Lawyers who file motions to suppress on all violations are just manipulating the system in the hopes that a witness for the prosecution will forget to show up and the charges will be dropped and we all know it...even the lawyers who do it. Don't play it like these lawyers are just out to give their clients a fair shake and prevent judicial injustice. Even YOU admitted that you're guilty as sin. In a totally just system, you would have taken your lumps or been rightfully convicted. In the current system, you paid enough to some schyster lawyer who manipulated the system and got a guilty person (you) off of a legitimate charge.

Yes, you did say that - you don't want a two-way court system - you want an unchallengeable administrative (i.e., non-court) system that all guilty are convicted. In case you don't realize (my hunch is that you do though) this is why those who enforce the laws have zero bearing on these things.

Of course I'm guilty as sin and I got off Scot free, and 95% chance my current and future citations will go the same way. Again, the system ain't broken, the premise is (traffic tickets/enforcement).

[MaxPower]

I sent her an email...

Cool, thanks!

[sparkplug]

I'm not really too fond of city police pulling people over on the interstate. Where I live in the south the town's jurisdiction may butt up against the interstate, the town will generally annex about a 1/4 mile or so on the other side of the interstate. That way they pull people over who are on the interstate because the town technically has jurisdiction on both side of the interstate. It might be only a quarter mile on the other side but it's still their right.

This is the kind of $@#% that really damages a town. People aren't going to go to a gas station in a town that police are predatory on people driving through even if laws were broken. It's bad for the town's reputation

The second problem is the police pulling people over creates an additional distraction, in addition to being generally nearby where people get on and off the interstate. A driver has to greatly slow down or move over

Now Coug's situation is his own and he'll have to deal with it. I can see where there's unjust laws but we still have to obey those laws. Now I believe it wrong to speed (within limits) and disobey the law, it's also true the people enforcing the law aren't always doing it for the best interest of the people.

Now for leo's here don't get you drawers in a wad. There's just always things done a certain way and sometimes its not right.

[hounddog]

This is the kind of $@#% that really damages a town. People aren't going to go to a gas station in a town that police are predatory on people driving through even if laws were broken.

They will if they are really low on gas. 

[sparkplug]

They will if they are really low on gas.  

True gas stations rarely go out of business, but restaurants, and everything else but motels will be locals only.

That said it doesn't happen very often but you know when a law enforcement does this purely for revenue generation, you see it.

[850CSi]

This thread is hilarious.

[bing_oh]

I'm not really too fond of city police pulling people over on the interstate. Where I live in the south the town's jurisdiction may butt up against the interstate, the town will generally annex about a 1/4 mile or so on the other side of the interstate. That way they pull people over who are on the interstate because the town technically has jurisdiction on both side of the interstate. It might be only a quarter mile on the other side but it's still their right.

This is the kind of $@#% that really damages a town. People aren't going to go to a gas station in a town that police are predatory on people driving through even if laws were broken. It's bad for the town's reputation

The second problem is the police pulling people over creates an additional distraction, in addition to being generally nearby where people get on and off the interstate. A driver has to greatly slow down or move over

Now Coug's situation is his own and he'll have to deal with it. I can see where there's unjust laws but we still have to obey those laws. Now I believe it wrong to speed (within limits) and disobey the law, it's also true the people enforcing the law aren't always doing it for the best interest of the people.

Now for leo's here don't get you drawers in a wad. There's just always things done a certain way and sometimes its not right.

But I'll bet if you're in a crash or broken down on the interstate on a cold, icy, snowy January night and your options are a 45 minute response time from the State Police or Sheriff's Office compared to a 5 minute response time by the local PD, you'd be happy that the local PD has jurisdiction. People want to have their cake and eat it too.

[bing_oh]

Yes, you did say that - you don't want a two-way court system - you want an unchallengeable administrative (i.e., non-court) system that all guilty are convicted. In case you don't realize (my hunch is that you do though) this is why those who enforce the laws have zero bearing on these things.

Of course I'm guilty as sin and I got off Scot free, and 95% chance my current and future citations will go the same way. Again, the system ain't broken, the premise is (traffic tickets/enforcement).

Please feel free to support your assertion that I said this with quotes. Hell, I'll take just one quote. If you can't, feel free to STFU.

[GoCougs]

Cool, thanks!

"Hi Joe, I got the officer's report suppressed, after that there was no evidence."

[GoCougs]

Please feel free to support your assertion that I said this with quotes. Hell, I'll take just one quote. If you can't, feel free to STFU.

No quote necessary; only simple logic. You have a major issue with things like motions, evidence, hearings, etc., used by defendants. Without these things, how is there a true (adversarial) court system? There isn't. Ergo, you argue for a non-court court system, and I'll be nice and say you argue for an administrative system.

[hounddog]

"Hi Joe, I got the officer's report suppressed, after that there was no evidence."

A report for a civil infraction ticket?

Now I know you are full of shit.

/thread

[AutobahnSHO]

No quote necessary; only simple logic. You have a major issue with things like motions, evidence, hearings, etc., used by defendants. Without these things, how is there a true (adversarial) court system? There isn't. Ergo, you argue for a non-court court system, and I'll be nice and say you argue for an administrative system.

No he doesn't. He has an issue with stupid technicalities and the way the court system allows the inane maneuverings to tire the other party out enough to give up. Which is what happened in your case.

1- you were guilty
2- court has to assue you are innocent until proven guilty.
3- #2 means the government has to do the work to prove #1
4- your lawyer just uses meaningless motions or time wasting tactics to complicate #3
5- at some point the court realizes that it's not worth the time/money spent to pursue.

That is more administrative than real court.
Just like many times people or the state settle to skip the hassle and money spent lawyering through a legitimate case.
That still doesn't mean justice was done. In fact, as much as I disagree with HOV lanes, justice was thwarted in this thread. The people were injured and likely will continue to be (by current legal definition) as you keep "breaking the "law"".

[sparkplug]

But I'll bet if you're in a crash or broken down on the interstate on a cold, icy, snowy January night and your options are a 45 minute response time from the State Police or Sheriff's Office compared to a 5 minute response time by the local PD, you'd be happy that the local PD has jurisdiction. People want to have their cake and eat it too.

I'll agree with that. I don't think you get the point. But I see discussing things here is pointless. It's is silly to argue with a man who's back his points up with handcuffs, a taser, a 40 S&W, and dozen donuts. Don't Krispy Kreme me.  I just made a point, I'm not trying to argue. Here let me just walk away and you can finish chewing Coug's a new one. I won't make any more post in this thread. You can have the last word because you're so mature and grown up. Careful though I might be pulling reverse psychology on you. I haven't decided yet.


Sorry Cougs, you need a lawyer here as well.  

[Rupert]

How old are you, sparkplug?

[Byteme]

Does your trolling nullify his?

And I think you're an alright cat who simply lets himself get spun up a bit about immaterial things.

No, actually I've been told  that I apparently don't willingly suffer fools.  This is just further proof of that.   

[Byteme]

But I'll bet if you're in a crash or broken down on the interstate on a cold, icy, snowy January night and your options are a 45 minute response time from the State Police or Sheriff's Office compared to a 5 minute response time by the local PD, you'd be happy that the local PD has jurisdiction. People want to have their cake and eat it too.

Unless you happen to be in certain places in Oklahoma.  Wait time there are as long as 45 minutes.