Speeding Ticket on Highway 17, VC 22350

[That Guy]

so it looks like the critical speed for southbound 17 is 56mph...

The critical speed in in fact 56...

The nearest 5mph increment to the 56mph speed is 55mph. The speed limit could be posted at 55mph however, the engineer must still evaluate other factors which may provide further reason or justification for an additional reduction of the speed limit that is to be posted.

That 5 mph reduction (to 50mph) from the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th-percentile speed (which is the 55mph speed), where engineering study indicates the need for a reduction in speed to match existing conditions with the traffic safety needs of the community.

In this case, the engineer cited 2 valid reasons for a reduction:

1) The accident rate for that particular segment of highway (shown to be @ 2.41 Accidents/Million Vehicle Miles) is HIGHER than the state average (of 1.68 Accidents/Million vehicle Miles) by over 43%. This large of a margin is sufficient to justify an additional 5mph speed limit reduction.

2) Although VC 22358.5 states that "physical conditions such as width, curvature, grade and surface conditions, or any other condition readily apparent to a driver, in the absence of other factors, would not require special downward speed zoning", the engineer in this case did find that those conditions -winding alignment and restricted horizontal and vertical curves- creates what is known as "limited sight distance ahead of a driver" which is not a condition that is readily apparent; thereby resulting in sudden slow downs and/or sudden lane changes. Acoordingly, and for this condition alone, a 5mph downward speed limit reduction is justified.

So an additional 5mph reduction from the 55mph preliminary speed limit is well justified.

does that mean i have a case?

Not based on the 5mph reduction... That was properly done according to the data that is provided in the survey.

You can of course make the argument that CS alluded to, but that too comes with a caveat (see below)!

It's also 6+ years old

Where do you get 6+ years from?

The date on the top of page(s) 3 & 4 is 03/07/2006 and the signature at the bottom of page 4 is 03/09/2006. You were cited (according to your first post) on 02/03/2012... That is just under 5 years & 11 months which also means survey is still in its 5th year, which in turn means that they can simply present a valid survey which justifies the speed limit, prove that the speed measurement is accurate, and that it is in excess of the posted P.F. limit, at which point the burden then shifts to you to establish by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and under the conditions then existing (CVC 22351(b)). Accordingly, the analogy I offered above (post #2 -starting with "If the officer disagreed that your speed was safe..." and ending with "... And 98% of judges would have found you 'guilty'!") still applies...

Read sections B and C as well as the recommendation. The 85th percentile isn't the only factor at work for setting speed limits. However the officer also has to submit the raw data sheets with the speed study (People v Ellis).

True.... However, be mindful of the possibility that either the survey presented by the officer in court or if the court has a copy on file that is in fact a complete survey, then that point is moot. In this case, the posted pages are clearly marked as pages 3 & 4. While I doubt that pages 1 & 2 are data sheets, I won't dismiss the possibility that pages 5 and up, if they do exist may contain the required data sheets!

Additionally, one should note that People v. Ellis (1995) is an Orange County case and typically, decisions in one appellate district are not binding on courts in other districts...

Oh and CS, just a suggestion... But I think you should probably include links to case law citations you're offering? I only say this because a quick search for People v Ellis results in 30 Ellis cases (although some are clearly duplicates)... Even if you add 22350 as a search term, you still have 3 cases to read through... Thanks!

---

My way of interpreting laws is via their plain language.

You may in fact interpret laws by their plain meaning, Jim.... Sometimes you need to look beyond “plain meaning” and into legislative intent, other times a plain meaning interpretation isn't reasonable or practical enough in the real world. And you either stop short providing an practical answer, or you provide examples that are beyond the realm of "plain", are far from being reasonable or are simply impractical... That, makes your interpretations "odd"!

Example: (1) You've always insisted that the prosecution is responsible for disclosing evidence... And along with that, (2) you've always added that law enforcement is not the responsible party for the same.... [That would be your offering a plain interpretation of a law]

No one can dispute (1)... [well, except for 99% of deputy district attorneys and city attorneys out there]...
No one can argue against (2)... [except, some LEAs actually do respond to a discovery request, some do in fact provide documents requested from them]! And yet the latter is not good enough for you. So you argue against requesting it from the LEA even though in some instances, if you're going to get anything, that would be the only way!

So what is the practical, reasonable & achievable resolution in your opinion?

I hope your answer isn't "appeal"... Simply because for most, an appeal is not practical, nor is it reasonable and it sure as hell does not seem achievable from where they stand at the time!

So, instead of disparaging me using broad generalities, maybe you could be specific about my "odd way of interpreting laws".

The way I see it, it isn't disparaging unless it is (1) true and (2) intended to "disparage".

So are you now admitting that it is odd, when in your first sentence you suggested it is "plain" as in ordinary?

And are you sure that my "odd comment" was intended to disparage? I only ask because I added that “I may be wrong”... and how “it is not my place to provide explanations on [your] behalf”... So there, explain away... Tell the OP why your interpretation of the plain language of the discovery statutes implies that he should not direct his request to the LEA, but instead should insist on obtaining the material from the DA and how that would have beneftted him more than going to the LEA under the assumption that the DA will not reply!

This, BTW is VERY RARE... We don't often get the opportunity to follow up and elaborate on the worthiness of the advice and opinion we previously provided!

I'm assuming that the ticket's location was in the same area described in section C of the survey... right?

I'm assuming your assumption is correct, yes!

[California student]

True.... However, be mindful of the possibility that either the survey presented by the officer in court or if the court has a copy on file that is in fact a complete survey, then that point is moot. In this case, the posted pages are clearly marked as pages 3 & 4. While I doubt that pages 1 & 2 are data sheets, I won't dismiss the possibility that pages 5 and up, if they do exist may contain the required data sheets!

Additionally, one should note that People v. Ellis (1995) is an Orange County case and typically, decisions in one appellate district are not binding on courts in other districts...

Oh and CS, just a suggestion... But I think you should probably include links to case law citations you're offering? I only say this because a quick search for People v Ellis results in 30 Ellis cases (although some are clearly duplicates)... Even if you add 22350 as a search term, you still have 3 cases to read through... Thanks!

Good point about the links, I'll start doing that in the future.

While true the data sheets are most likely going to be provided, it's one of those things where when discovery is received without it that immediately comes to mind. I don't think it's logical to run down every single possible contingency of what may or may not show up in every thread, but when an argument appears given the information at hand, it should be mentioned.

In regards to it not being binding, if there's nothing else left to argue, it's better than nothing. I think (I could be wrong though) that at a minimum it's better than making the argument up from scratch. Furthermore, while it is easier to walk on a road (binding decision or clear statute) than a trail (non-binding decision), a trail is easier than walking in the brush (new argument).

[That Guy]

Good point about the links, I'll start doing that in the future.

While true the data sheets are most likely going to be provided, it's one of those things where when discovery is received without it that immediately comes to mind. I don't think it's logical to run down every single possible contingency of what may or may not show up in every thread, but when an argument appears given the information at hand, it should be mentioned.

In regards to it not being binding, if there's nothing else left to argue, it's better than nothing. I think (I could be wrong though) that at a minimum it's better than making the argument up from scratch. Furthermore, while it is easier to walk on a road (binding decision or clear statute) than a trail (non-binding decision), a trail is easier than walking in the brush (new argument).

I wholeheartedly agree with all of the above.... But by the same standards that you just set, and in the interest of full disclosure, it also should be mentioned if/when a particular argument is limited in some form or by some view point. That way if it happens not to work for one person in particular, they aren't as taken back by its failure.

We are all obviously free to align our opinions with whichever citations we feel are relevant and applicable. So while I might not agree with you that (example) Borzakian is likely to change the future of Red Light Cameras, simply because I [don't think that decision was all that kosher and I] happen to think Goldsmith is more on point, it doesn't mean that I think Borzakian will not ever result in a dismissal. Though I might mention it, you won't catch find me citing it!

[EWYLTJ]

Cal Student,

Stay vigil about the data sheets. I have seen several times surveys presented in court without data sheets. In fact, typically, the surveys are presented by the cop... but he honestly has no idea what the survey says or means. That has been my experience.... YMMV.


TG,

I have told you before and I'll tell you again why serving a IDR on law enforcement is a bad idea. Anything that the cop provides is NOT discovery. It is simply some information he is sending you. He is NOT the prosecution... he is a witness. He is not bound by the rules of discovery. Many times there are several versions of a particular survey. In my town, I have seen about 4 versions of a current survey for one section of hwy. So, if the cop provides you with survey A, you could develop your case based on that information. Then, at trial, he could present survey B and your whole defense is screwed. If you got that survey from the prosecution as a product of discovery, then you would rightly be able to object to the admission of survey B. However, if you got it from the cop... you really have no grounds to object on.

Additionally, if you rely on the cop, he could simply not provide the discovery you request. Or he could simply say "get it yourself". Then you are once again subject to the variability of surveys that may exist. Heck, the cop could provide you a survey that is expired... you build a case based on that and then show up in court with a valid survey.

In short, the prosecution is statutorily obligated to provide discovery. The cop is not. Anything the prosecution provides is subject to the rules of discovery. Anything the cop provides is not. But, if you ask the cop for discovery, then you give the court an out. The court can claim that the prosecution provided the discovery you asked for if it is convenient.... or the court can claim that the cop isn't the prosecution if it is convenient. So, if you only request discovery from the prosecution, then you eliminate that ambiguity.


You can talk about real world all you want... but the statutes are clear. 99% of the DAs (your number) that claim they have no obligations with respect to traffic cases are wrong. I have seen DAs incorrectly cite Carlucci when claiming that they have no role in traffic cases... but Carlucci only says that the DA doesn't have to be present at trial. There is NOTHING that suggests they are relieved of all prosecutorial responsibilities. To the contrary, there are statutes that specifically address obligations of the prosecution in traffic cases. So, just because prosecutors shirk their responsibilities routinely with respect to traffic cases, does NOT mean they are right and their action is legal. If you can point to any statute or case law that contradicts me... please let me know. Case law and statutory law supports my perspective. But if you are simply relying on "that's the way we've always done it", then I say that's not enough.

[California student]

Cal Student,

Stay vigil about the data sheets. I have seen several times surveys presented in court without data sheets. In fact, typically, the surveys are presented by the cop... but he honestly has no idea what the survey says or means. That has been my experience.... YMMV.

In your experience, how often does the defendant object to them, and how often does it result in a dismissal or acquittal?

Case law and statutory law supports my perspective. But if you are simply relying on "that's the way we've always done it", then I say that's not enough.

While I agree with the idea, I think application is important too. Most people aren't going to want to go through the hassle of appealing a case due to judicial error. So unless the defendant wants to go through an appeals process because what happened didn't match up with the law, then the law is irrelevant compared to how the court normally acts. In plenty of fields, and I imagine that the law is one of them (to be clear, I'm not a law student), practice and theory does not always match.

[EWYLTJ]

In your experience, how often does the defendant object to them, and how often does it result in a dismissal or acquittal?

In short, I have found that it rarely matters if the defendant objects to anything. As a matter of fact, I have rarely found that the law means anything in traffic court. Traffic court judges, IMHO, are probably the absolute WORST judges. They routinely tend to abuse their discretion and they typically ignore the law. With that in mind, ANY defense you raise is irrelevant.... unless you are willing to stand your ground.

While I agree with the idea, I think application is important too. Most people aren't going to want to go through the hassle of appealing a case due to judicial error. So unless the defendant wants to go through an appeals process because what happened didn't match up with the law, then the law is irrelevant compared to how the court normally acts. In plenty of fields, and I imagine that the law is one of them (to be clear, I'm not a law student), practice and theory does not always match.

The plain language of the law is NOT theory. It is LAW! However, judges and prosecutors RELY on the apathy that you describe above. How do you think LA DA's office can send out preprinted form letters telling people that they have no prosecutorial responsibilities in traffic cases. Most people simply believe that lie... most of the rest simply say, "it's not worth arguing about".

So.... you have to ask yourself a question: what is your goal? If your intent is to simply get out of paying a fine... then throw some crap against the wall and see what sticks. However, if you intent is to hold your government accountable for their actions, then it will require some effort.

Liberties are not cheap. Their price is constant diligence. Sometimes we have to spend a dollar to save a dime in the name of liberty and our rights. But that little sliver of liberty is precious and cannot be measured in a dollar amount (IMHO). So, ask yourself... is it OK that the govt (i.e. police) violate the law and no one hold them accountable? Is it OK for the courts to hold you in biased judgement while ignoring the protections afforded you under the law? Is it OK for you to be prosecuted for a crime when no prosecution exists? Just what is your liberties worth to you? The cost of having to go to the courthouse and argue for them? How about the cost of a few stamps and the time to write up an appeal? Are those prices too much for you to pay to preserve your rights?

Just look around you. In the last few years, your govt has decided that it can:

-tap your phone without a warrant (Patriot Act)
-arrest you and hold you indefinitely without a lawyer or trial (NDAA)
-limit your freedom of speech with respect to protesting/criticizing your govt (HR347)

These are just a few examples of how your liberties are being stolen from you one at a time. And the apathy of the American public is like the welcome mat to the govt that would take them from you. Remember: In order for evil to flourish, all that is required is for good men to do nothing.

Now, with that said.... just what is your intent?

[That Guy]

I have told you before and I'll tell you again why serving a IDR on law enforcement is a bad idea.

Something is better than nothing.

Anything that the cop provides is NOT discovery. It is simply some information he is sending you. He is NOT the prosecution... he is a witness. He is not bound by the rules of discovery. Many times there are several versions of a particular survey. In my town, I have seen about 4 versions of a current survey for one section of hwy. So, if the cop provides you with survey A, you could develop your case based on that information. Then, at trial, he could present survey B and your whole defense is screwed. If you got that survey from the prosecution as a product of discovery, then you would rightly be able to object to the admission of survey B. However, if you got it from the cop... you really have no grounds to object on.

Additionally, if you rely on the cop, he could simply not provide the discovery you request. Or he could simply say "get it yourself". Then you are once again subject to the variability of surveys that may exist. Heck, the cop could provide you a survey that is expired... you build a case based on that and then show up in court with a valid survey.

In short, the prosecution is statutorily obligated to provide discovery. The cop is not. Anything the prosecution provides is subject to the rules of discovery. Anything the cop provides is not. But, if you ask the cop for discovery, then you give the court an out. The court can claim that the prosecution provided the discovery you asked for if it is convenient.... or the court can claim that the cop isn't the prosecution if it is convenient. So, if you only request discovery from the prosecution, then you eliminate that ambiguity.

Jim, you're still missing the big picture...

You can request discovery from the DA, if he provides (rarely) you're good; if he doesn't, you walk into court complain, motion, do whatever.. Judge looks at the officer and says the magic words: "copies?"... You ask for a continuance, some may offer you an hour's recess, others may offer you a few days if you're willing to come back and *IF* you are still within the 45 day statutory period *OR* if you're waiving time.... Either way, discovery has been provided, any subsequent or pending objections have been answered, no grounds for appeal!

You can request discovery from the LEA, the may provide you with the correct info, they may fake you out or they may shine you on... (copied & pasted from above)...you walk into court complain, motion, do whatever... Judge looks at the officer and says the magic words: "copies?"... You ask for a continuance, some may offer you an hour's recess, others may offer you a few days if you're willing to come back and *IF* you are still within the 45 day statutory period *OR* if you're waiving time.... Either way, discovery has been provided, any subsequent or pending objections have been answered, no grounds for appeal!

Even for those times that they may have provided a different version of what they present in court, you make an objection on the record, regardless of whether the court overrules your objection or sustains it, (yupp, you guessed right, copied and pasted from above) Judge looks at the officer and says the magic words: "copies?"... You ask for a continuance, some may offer you an hour's recess, others may offer you a few days if you're willing to come back and *IF* you are still within the 45 day statutory period *OR* if you're waiving time.... Either way, discovery has been provided, any subsequent or pending objections have been answered, no grounds for appeal!

You request discovery from both, one or both may provide you the full gamut, no reason to complain... Most likely, one or both will ignore you, while the other might give you some or fill your entire request, or they may fake you out and send you the wrong info... Or it is also possible that they may both ignore your request... (you know what's coming up next, right?)... you walk into court complain, motion, do whatever... Judge looks at the officer and says the magic words: "copies?"... You ask for a continuance, some may offer you a hour's recess, others may offer you a few days if you're willing to come back and *IF* you are still withing the 45 day statutory period *OR* if you're waiving time.... Either way, discovery has been provided, any subsequent or pending objections have been answered, no grounds for appeal!

A bunch of different scenarios, but when it comes down to business, the end result is the same...

So you can do a number of things:

You can pout, complain, file motions, and threaten appeals, the end result you get discovery and you get time to review it. Meaning, no due process violation, no violation of your constitutional rights and assuming you were found guilty at trial, your appeal re discovery is pointless and moot simply because you were granted appropriate relief and one which provided you with material and the time to review it!

Alternatively, you can attempt at preparing ahead of time by getting whatever version they may provide, try to make good with what you get, and prepare for it to be different than what you'll see, learn how to read a survey and object to its content rather than take them on at a battle you know you cannot win...

Fact of the matter is, Jim, times have changed since you've been here last, we are no longer asking for discovery; instead, we are filing for TBDs and requesting copies of the officer's declaration and supporting evidence. That has become the "NEW DISCOVERY"... True they may submit something different for the TDN but so what, its not like there is a better less cumbersome process!

Now, with as much as I know and remember, I do remember that you are one of the grandfathers of the "rubber stamping phenomenon"... Well, this new procedure has actually revealed that there are literally no cases where a decision was reached without the officer submitting a declaration (there was one case where the OP claimed that the court solicited -verbal testimony- from the officer [instead of a written declaration] but that too faded into the sunset without a final outcome), thereby giving the impression that at least, the officer must file one... But in addition, there have been a few dismissals and upon contacting the clerk, it is later revealed that case was dismissed for lack of prosecution or in easier terms, "cop got lazy and skipped his declaration"... And lastly, with the few other declarations I've read, it is my opinion that most were won squarely by the officer... Your opinion WILL vary, I am sure!

At any rate, the consensus seems to be that if you've got the desire, the energy and the time to invest on an appeal, then don't waste it on discovery issues simply because those are NOT likely to produce any favorable (dismissal) results... Instead, prepare, plan and execute your trial in a manner where you are making pertinent and timely objections on the record and while hoping for a dismissal at the end of the day, but knowing full well that if you've executed properly, and were able to create that slight chance you might prevail by appealing, you will appeal if you lose at the trial level.

I am sure you've read about Quirky's appeal (he's been on his own sabbatical for a couple of weeks but he'll be back soon)... But we also have a couple of others in process as we speak (the only other one I could find with a quick search)...

You can talk about real world all you want...

You can deny reality Jim... Deny it all you want. Making requests to the DA will get you zilch... When you do accomplish something... anything by doing it that way, let me know, I will bow in your direction.

but the statutes are clear. 99% of the DAs (your number) that claim they have no obligations with respect to traffic cases are wrong. I have seen DAs incorrectly cite Carlucci when claiming that they have no role in traffic cases... but Carlucci only says that the DA doesn't have to be present at trial. There is NOTHING that suggests they are relieved of all prosecutorial responsibilities. To the contrary, there are statutes that specifically address obligations of the prosecution in traffic cases. So, just because prosecutors shirk their responsibilities routinely with respect to traffic cases, does NOT mean they are right and their action is legal. If you can point to any statute or case law that contradicts me... please let me know.

You're singing to the choir, Jim, and you know that! But I know its been a while for you so I'm glad you can get that off your chest again!

Case law and statutory law supports my perspective.

Your perspective is to request it from where I know I won't get it, and when I don't get it, complain to the court so that I can get it on my trial date, that shuts me up and I've accomplished nothing but forcing my self into possibly having to cram over a bunch of documents I've never seen before....

Sounds "odd" to me, but hey, to each his own!

And by the way, aside from Carlucci, what "Case Law" are you speaking of, Jim?

Have you come across any precedent setting cases that show that a defendant in an INFRACTION CASE is entitled to discovery and the prosecuting attorney is obligated to provide in a timely manner, or else???

But if you are simply relying on "that's the way we've always done it", then I say that's not enough.

And if you're relying on "theoretically, that's the way it should be done", then you've proven nothing, and that is farther from "enough"!

---

How do you think LA DA's office can send out preprinted form letters telling people that they have no prosecutorial responsibilities in traffic cases.

I think they're a little bit more creative with their language... In fact, I did mention Quirky's appeal up above... well, after a few obstacles that he has run into on appeal with his pro tem judge, the L. A. City Attorney actually wrote the appellate division suggesting that if for some reason they decide in the defendant's favor that they (the CA) are opposed to a dismissal and would be requesting a remand for a retrial.

So they do want involvement, just not in the simple normal everyday infraction... In fact I know of a 2 "driving while suspended cases" which almost always get filed as infractions, the L.A. D.A. ended up going full force on those... As it turned out, the judge wanted to clear his calendar and they both ended up with a time extension to restore license + probation + a fine for one and community service for the other...

And not that I need to or should be making excuses for them but really, step back for a minute and evaluate... We might take offense to it because from our view point, its our case and our hard earned money paying for the fine; from their stand point, they aren't doing it out of spite, they simply are over loaded with more serious cases to handle; you don't believe that? Next time you're in court, Any court, find out which room criminal cases are heard in, walk in and take a peak at the D.A.'s table and the stack of files in front of them. Then you can tell me again why they should make time to deal with our petty "... is this what a calibration certificate is supposed to look like, I've never seen one before in my life... So how do I know its real???" s**t!

And talk about keeping things in proper perspective.... We can bitch, nag, cry and whine all we want, we can even stomp our feet... At the end of the day, I would rather struggle without discovery and without the DA's involvement, than I would with him merely sitting in the same courtroom as me during my trial!

Think of what a D.D.A. could do to your buddy Geo's 30-question defense, Jim!

30 would be to 3...
"Can you read 22350 for me please?" And "something something about it not mentioning a speed limit?"

... OK, OK... 2 questions, not 3!

Now that, I would pay to see!

[That Guy]

---

Oh and Jim... as an afterthought, you obviously are still of the same mind set and believe in the same philosophy that you've always believed in and offered ass advice...

I trust that if you do have a new trick up your sleeve, you know... what to do next after you serve the D.A. and he/she ignores you, that you will share, right?

[EWYLTJ]

Same old TG.... You would rather ignore the plain language of the law than challenge the illegal actions of the state simply because you believe that a case in traffic court isn't worthy of the law. You commiserate with the judges who pretend that the law is merely a suggestion while in traffic court. You think that an infraction defendant is not worthy of the same protections under the law as a felony defendant because infraction defendants just aren't important enough. I understand. Stand upon your soap box and lecture the masses that the law doesn't apply as written, rather it is subjective and can be discarded if the defendant or his alleged crime isn't worthy of the rights afforded by the law. We should not demand our rights because that would be too inconvenient for the state. Makes sense to me. Why didn't I think of this?

By the way.... I skimmed through Quirky's appeal thread. It seems to me that his saga supports my perspective that traffic courts are grossly corrupt in that they view the law as a mere suggestion. Traffic courts are largely biased in favor of the prosecution (that doesn't even exist). So, imagine if only 1% of people who received bogus traffic tickets stood up for their rights the way quirky did.... the appellate divisions would come to a screeching halt!! The courts, prosecutors and police would have to rethink the way they effect justice in this state. Cops who charge infractions inappropriately and courts who disregard the law would have to change their way of doing business.

So, with this in mind, I really don't understand why your knee jerk reaction is always to encourage defendants to just give up any defense that they may believe they have. Makes one think that you must be one of those "pro tems" that quirky is so fond of...

[That Guy]

Same old TG.... You would rather ignore the plain language of the law than challenge the illegal actions of the state simply because you believe that a case in traffic court isn't worthy of the law. You commiserate with the judges who pretend that the law is merely a suggestion while in traffic court. You think that an infraction defendant is not worthy of the same protections under the law as a felony defendant because infraction defendants just aren't important enough. I understand. Stand upon your soap box and lecture the masses that the law doesn't apply as written, rather it is subjective and can be discarded if the defendant or his alleged crime isn't worthy of the rights afforded by the law. We should not demand our rights because that would be too inconvenient for the state. Makes sense to me. Why didn't I think of this?

keep preaching Jim.... Because the state legislature, the courts, law enforcement and citizen of the State of California are all on a direct feed to your posts in this thread.

Lets not point fingers about challenging the system.....

Seriously... Since we have both been on this forum, you have had 2 (or was it 3) opportunities to challenge the system.

And yet you opted for the easy way out... BOTH TIMES.... Once with your friend's citation... And another time, a few months later, for your wife!

You bitched, whined nagged and stomped your feet at the Mayor, the Chief of Police and whoever else you got involved, until you got 2 citations dismissed!

Never in my life have I ever heard someone complain about the system as much as you do, or express the need for change as often as you have, or blame others for not making the effort like you would if given the chance! And yet the chance came and went and you did little of what you preach! In fact, you circumvented whatever few legal method that the average defendant has rights to...

Similarly, never in my life have I known anyone who would even consider the methods you used...

Why didn't you encourage your friend or your wife to "challenge the illegal actions of the state"?

Why didn't you talk your friend and your wife into standing up for their rights as an "infraction defendant"

Why didn't you stand on YOUR soap box and preach to them about how "their alleged crime is worthy of the rights afforded by the law"?

Why do we have to read the same artificial, sanctimonious, self-righteous speech you always dump on us every time you decide to grace us with your presence!

And please, you can spare me the bullshit story about how you managed to "get the speed limits changed in your town" and how "the Chief of Police promised you they will not run speed enforcement until all speed limits have been updated"... Low and behold, not a short few months later, you start a new thread about how your wife was cited for speeding and guess what?... The Speed limit is not justified!

So again, quit the holier than thou attitude, because to those who know you, and have been around, you sound like a complete hypocritical idiot talking out of both sides of your mouth!

By the way.... I skimmed through Quirky's appeal thread. It seems to me that his saga supports my perspective that traffic courts are grossly corrupt in that they view the law as a mere suggestion. Traffic courts are largely biased in favor of the prosecution (that doesn't even exist). So, imagine if only 1% of people who received bogus traffic tickets stood up for their rights the way quirky did.... the appellate divisions would come to a screeching halt!! The courts, prosecutors and police would have to rethink the way they effect justice in this state. Cops who charge infractions inappropriately and courts who disregard the law would have to change their way of doing business.

And what have you done to try and make things right Jim?

Scroll back up and go through the same "Why" questions I asked above!!!

Here.. Tell me if this sounds familiar...

"This is a forum where people come seeking help. Are you here to help or are you here to show how smooth-tongued you are, and how you know your rights but everybody else is just plain old stupid!"

So now that the shoe is on the other foot:

OP is hoping he can come up wit a defense plan for his citation... You asked about which page the survey is on, and yet you offered NOTHING to help him out! -Bitching me out is much easier than offering any help, doesn't it?-

California Student asked you several questions, and tried to engage you in a dialogue, and what did you do? You answered NONE of his questions and instead, you gave him the same speech you pitched several times in this same thread! -Whining about what I say and how I say it is more productive than explaining, isn't it?-

Even I pretended I wanted some answers, and engaged you with a few questions... But please, disregard... I have heard the same sermon for years now, so please, spare me!!!

So, with this in mind, I really don't understand why your knee jerk reaction is always to encourage defendants to just give up any defense that they may believe they have. Makes one think that you must be one of those "pro tems" that quirky is so fond of...

Its called reality... I think I have already demonstrated how it works and how you are in complete and utter denial of it it in my last two replies to you... And no, I don't think they should just come up with some stupid idea for a defense just to try, and more importantly, just to satisfy your curiosity as to how viable you strange and odd interpretations of the law are, and even most importantly, to possibly lose the chance at a fine reduction and the chance to take traffic school!

Regardless, it is a difference of opinion... Get off the idea that I have to conform to your standard or trace around the same map that you draw for everyone... Frankly, at this point in time, I really am not sure if you simply disagree with my ideas and interpretations or if they are simply too difficult for you to understand, and dismissing them as invalid is an easier out for you!

Last but not least, and I have told you this a couple of weeks ago...

This newly found obsession you have with me and with my post is quite disturbing!