Quote Quoting blewis
View Post
All right -- one more time -- if you don't believe us, just PAY THE TICKET!!! We don't care!

IRLJ 3.1 (b) states:



So, even if the original DOES have a signature, the court rule REQUIRES that ANY PORTION not given to you, MUST be SUPPRESSED! There is NO DISCRETION! If the portion you received does NOT contain a signature, the signature MUST be suppressed. If the signature is missing (which it IS if it's suppressed), then the "sworn statement" does NOT comply with RCW 9A.72.085. In that case, it is NOT admissible!

You're making this MUCH more complicated than it has to be.

If you present this even halfway decently, you'll win -- OR you can go off on some other tangent (like "the vastly incomplete infraction info) argument -- ANY LOSE!!!!!

Your choice -- I'm done either way.

Barry
Ahhh! You're right Barry, sorry. I already have a surefire strategy, I shouldn't be further burdening you all. You guys have all been a huge help on this, so thank you for that. I'll let you guys know how it goes tomorrow. As a parting gift of thanks, here's a dog dressed up as a lawyer:
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3otavc/

Thanks again!

- - - Updated - - -

Weird thing happened, I made my motion to suppress and dismiss, and the judge denied my motion to suppress, as "the original is signed, and that's all that matters". I tried to make my case, but he just said "you're not getting off on that", and that my motion to suppress was denied. He then read over the rangers statement and said "this ticket is no good" and said my motion to dismiss was granted. I'm guessing the lack of info on the infraction scared him, even though it shouldn't have. It was a commissioner who heard my motions, not a judge. I'm confused, but hey, it's over. Thanks for the help everyone!