ExpertLaw.com Forums

Can You Challenge a Red Light Camera Ticket Based on Later Removal of the Camera

Printable View

  • 01-28-2014, 04:31 AM
    mikeypx82
    Can You Challenge a Red Light Camera Ticket Based on Later Removal of the Camera
    My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California, city of Riverside.

    August 2013. I received a 'Notice of Traffic Violation' from The Riverside Police Department. The ticket was for 'Failure to Stop at Red Light' (CVC 21453a). On the ticket it said that I had until September 30th to respond to the Moreno Valley Court. The red light camera was located on University Ave. and Iowa. The camera is no longer there, it was taken down by the city on September 30th. Coincidence that my last day to contact the court was the same day the camera was shut off? So I ended up ignoring the ticket and never responded to the court.
    Earlier this month I got a nasty letter from the DMV. It said, 'Your drivers license is suspended as of Jan 30, 2014.... because you violated your written promise to appear and/or you failed to pay a fine pursuant to section 42003(A) V.C.' The letter went on to say that 'the suspension would remain in effect until all FTA's and FTP's have been removed from my record.

    I went to the Moreno Valley court last week and spoke with the clerk. She was not friendly or helpful. I got the feeling that she was just trying to railroad me into pleading guilty. I told her that I needed to talk to the judge about my ticket ASAP because the DMV was about to take my license away. She said I could not talk to the judge without paying my entire fine for bail. The original fine was $500 but it's now up to $900 because I didn't show up for court. I told her that I didn't have the money and she said my only other option was to go online where I could make payments. I went to the website and it does give me the option to pay $300 as a partial payment but I'd be pleading guilty by making a partial payment.

    I want to plead not guilty. I think I can beat this ticket since the camera is no longer there but I don't have $900 for bail. i could be wrong about this but doesn't the court have to prove that there were 'photo enforcement' signs posted when the camera took the pictures/video? How can they prove that if the camera and all the signs are no longer there?

    I checked the website and the pictures from the red light camera were still there. I have to go to the Police Department in Riverside if I want to see the video again though. So they still have all the footage even though the camera was removed which didn't surprise me.

    Is there anything else about the camera no longer being there that would help me get my ticket dismissed in court? How can I talk to the judge and plead not guilty without paying the full $900 fine?
  • 01-28-2014, 01:07 PM
    That Guy
    Re: Can You Challenge a Red Light Camera Ticket Based on Later Removal of the Camera
    Quote:

    Quoting mikeypx82
    View Post
    Coincidence that my last day to contact the court was the same day the camera was shut off?

    One has nothing to do with the other... The law still remains to be the same, the evidence against you is the same, and

    Quote:

    Quoting mikeypx82
    View Post
    Is there anything else about the camera no longer being there that would help me get my ticket dismissed in court? How can I talk to the judge and plead not guilty without paying the full $900 fine?

    If you can find a way to show that the camera not being there changes the fact the you ran the red light, then you've got something... Otherwise... You have got nothing?

    Quote:

    Quoting mikeypx82
    View Post
    How can I talk to the judge and plead not guilty without paying the full $900 fine?

    How many court dates have you been scheduled for? And how many times did you fail to appear?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote:

    Quoting mikeypx82
    View Post
    Earlier this month I got a nasty letter from the DMV. It said, 'Your drivers license is suspended as of Jan 30, 2014.... because you violated your written promise to appear and/or you failed to pay a fine pursuant to section 42003(A) V.C.' The letter went on to say that 'the suspension would remain in effect until all FTA's and FTP's have been removed from my record.

    CVC 42003(a) describes a situation where you were convicted of the infraction...

    CVC 42003

    (a) A judgment that a person convicted of an infraction be punished by a fine may also provide for the payment to be made within a specified time or in specified installments. A judgment granting a defendant time to pay the fine shall order that if the defendant fails to pay the fine or any installment thereof on the date that it is due, he or she shall appear in court on that date for further proceedings. Willful violation of the order is punishable as contempt.

    And not only convicted, but ordered to pay the fine either in full by a specific date or by making payments but that you failed to do either...

    All of that and yet your claim is that you "ended up ignoring the ticket and never responded to the court!!!!

    So maybe you can help us understand how you plan on pleading "not guilty" if the DMV says you ere convicted already?

    Quote:

    Quoting mikeypx82
    View Post
    I want to plead not guilty. I think I can beat this ticket since the camera is no longer there but I don't have $900 for bail.

    Let us assume that you had the $900.... Can you explain to us how is it you would expect to beat the ticket only on the basis that the camera is not there anymore...

    L A removed quite a few cameras in 2011... Do you think they shredded the citations they had on file? Or the ones that still coming in???

    Quote:

    Quoting mikeypx82
    View Post
    i could be wrong about this but doesn't the court have to prove that there were 'photo enforcement' signs posted when the camera took the pictures/video? How can they prove that if the camera and all the signs are no longer there?

    You are wrong about that... For one, the court does not have to prove anything. Second, the posting and or removing the signs was done by a governmental agency and therefore city and/or county records would still show the work was done on a certain date and then they were removed on... You are wasting your time... But stick around. We have a few characters who would love to discus all the issues you...
  • 01-28-2014, 06:31 PM
    BrianGC
    Re: Can You Challenge a Red Light Camera Ticket Based on Later Removal of the Camera
    Quote:

    Quoting mikeypx82
    View Post
    It said, 'Your drivers license is suspended as of Jan 30, 2014…. because you violated your written promise to appear and/or you failed to pay a fine pursuant to section 42003(A) V.C.'

    I don't see how you are guilty of violating CVC 42003 because you were "never convicted of an infraction". They don't even have proof of service of your 'Notice to Appear.' (unless you received it certified mail).

    Were you only mailed one Notice of Violation with no follow-up afterwards?

    However, it is possible that when you visited their website, it satisfied 'proof of service' since you entered proprietary information to obtain that video. Once you did that, possibly, it allowed them to file with the DMV if you ignored it. If you did not receive further correspondence from them after viewing the video, that is probably what happened.
  • 01-28-2014, 07:30 PM
    mikeypx82
    Re: Can You Challenge a Red Light Camera Ticket Based on Later Removal of the Camera
    Quote:

    Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    I don't see how you are guilty of violating CVC 42003 because you were "never convicted of an infraction". They don't even have proof of service of your 'Notice to Appear.' (unless you received it certified mail).

    Were you only mailed one Notice of Violation with no follow-up afterwards?

    However, it is possible that when you visited their website, it satisfied 'proof of service' since you entered proprietary information to obtain that video. Once you did that, possibly, it allowed them to file with the DMV if you ignored it. If you did not receive further correspondence from them after viewing the video, that is probably what happened.

    It was not sent certified mail. Everything I needed to log on to the website was in the letter they sent me. Anyone could have logged on to the website with that letter.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote:

    How many court dates have you been scheduled for? And how many times did you fail to appear?
    I was only scheduled for one court date which was on Sept. 30th.

    Quote:

    L A removed quite a few cameras in 2011... Do you think they shredded the citations they had on file? Or the ones that still coming in???
    Here's the answer to your question.
    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/26/local/la-me-red-light-cameras-20110727
  • 01-28-2014, 08:31 PM
    BrianGC
    Re: Can You Challenge a Red Light Camera Ticket Based on Later Removal of the Camera
    Quote:

    Quoting mikeypx82
    View Post
    It was not sent certified mail. Everything I needed to log on to the website was in the letter they sent me. Anyone could have logged on to the website with that letter.

    - - - Updated - - -



    I was only scheduled for one court date which was on Sept. 30th.



    Here's the answer to your question.
    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul...meras-20110727

    Maybe the DMV has an appeals process where you can claim you were never convicted of an infraction. But you might also have to say you never received a Notice to Appear from the Moreno Valley Courts too.

    I think the most you could achieve by this is to claim you never received a Notice to Appear, but that will only reduce the overage. You'd still have to deal with the original citation.
  • 01-28-2014, 11:03 PM
    themadnorwegian
    Re: Can You Challenge a Red Light Camera Ticket Based on Later Removal of the Camera
    Quote:

    Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    I don't see how you are guilty of violating CVC 42003 because you were "never convicted of an infraction". They don't even have proof of service of your 'Notice to Appear.' (unless you received it certified mail).

    The OP has really boned himself by ignoring the notice to appear that he admits he was mailed. In California, the court may try you in absentia if you fail to appear. (CVC 40903) Once you've been tried and found guilty, the court may impose a fine. That order can include a date by which the fine must be paid (CVC 42003(a)). If the guilty party fails to pay by that date, the court may place a hold on the party's drivers license. This hold is not released until the fine is fully paid. (CVC 40509.5(b))

    The Vehicle Code governs the rules around AETS Notices to Appear. There is a proof of service requirement, but not one that requires certified mail. (CVC 40518). This also requires that the notice was mailed within 15 days of the date of the infraction.

    Quote:

    Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    However, it is possible that when you visited their website, it satisfied 'proof of service' since you entered proprietary information to obtain that video.

    The Cal Code of Civil Procedure covers the requirements for proof of service. For service of notice of a court hearing CCP 684.220 allows, among other things, proof of service by mail, proof of service by written admission of the party served, and testimonial evidence of proof of service. First class mail is standard for service by mail, in accordance with CCP 684.120. The exact requirements for the contents of the certificate or affidavit is given by CCP 1013a.

    Quote:

    Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    Maybe the DMV has an appeals process where you can claim you were never convicted of an infraction.

    It doesn't work that way, unfortunately. The OP could have appealed his conviction after final judgement (PC 1466), but he only has 30 days to do so. (CRC 8.902). Since he's way outside of the 30 day window the only solution here is to either attempt to appear in court to resolve the matter, or pay the fine. If the hold is placed in accordance with 40509.5(b), the fine has to be paid. If it's 40509.5(a), it's possible to set a court date and have a certificate sent to the DMV that will release the hold.
  • 01-29-2014, 12:24 AM
    BrianGC
    Re: Can You Challenge a Red Light Camera Ticket Based on Later Removal of the Camera
    Quote:

    Quoting themadnorwegian
    View Post
    The OP has really boned himself by ignoring the notice to appear that he admits he was mailed.

    He never admitted anything up until maybe when he spoke to a desk clerk. Even then he may not have admitted being mailed the Notice to Appear, only that the courts filed a violation to the DMV on him. Furthermore, he did not admit anything here either since he is anonymous.

    I would have hired a lawyer to handle it then, and I would hire one now. OP, let your fingers do the walking. They are not as costly as you might think… and inquiring is free.

    IMO, trying to understand those laws as they will apply to this situation will scare anyone into submission.
  • 01-29-2014, 01:23 AM
    themadnorwegian
    Re: Can You Challenge a Red Light Camera Ticket Based on Later Removal of the Camera
    Quote:

    Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    He never admitted anything up until maybe when he spoke to a desk clerk. Even then he may not have admitted being mailed the Notice to Appear, only that the courts filed a violation to the DMV on him.

    Neither you nor I actually know what the OP admitted to the authorities, but he did say that he received a notice in his very first post. Further, since we haven't seen what he was mailed, any argument about the sufficiency of the service is speculative. However, Highway Robbery is a very good resource for learning all about Red Light Camera tickets and the possible defenses. My point was that particular line of argument doesn't appear to have been very successful thus far. The 15 day requirement for mailing, though, seems to be an easy way to win. Unfortunately, the OP ignored the ticket. This makes fixing the problem needlessly more difficult, and potentially more expensive.

    Quote:

    Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    I would have hired a lawyer to handle it then, and I would hire one now.

    Statistics show that misdemeanor defendants have significantly better outcomes when they're represented by a professional. Anybody who can afford a lawyer would do well to use one. The problem is that many good lawyers are more expensive than most traffic tickets.

    Quote:

    Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    Furthermore, he did not admit anything here either since he is anonymous.

    Nobody is anonymous on the internet, but Anonymous is on the internet. We may all have screen names, but it's trivial for anybody with a subpoena, search warrant, or lax government oversight to get access to information that would easily identify an individual.
  • 01-29-2014, 08:25 AM
    BrianGC
    Re: Can You Challenge a Red Light Camera Ticket Based on Later Removal of the Camera
    The authorities can be very deceptive and presumptive. When their website is visited, they may just assume that you got the citation in the mail, since statistically that is probably 99% the case. When you do not respond after that, they may not waist their time sending out more notices and threatening letters. They just wait a given amount of time and file with the DMV because they know that will eventually get you into their courts. I find it hard to believe that their normal protocol is to only send out one Notice of Violation and not follow through with a second, or certified mail. Actually, we know from posters here that they typically send out another Notice if the first is ignored.

    Assuming they wouldn't follow through with the citation because they dismantled that intersection was the first wrong step.
    Visiting their website may have been the second wrong step.
    Not perusing websites like Highway Robbery before taking any actions with the citation is another.

    It appears their website serves two purposes. It makes the motorist feel they have sufficient evidence to convict, and, it acts as 'bait' to validate receipt of the Notice to Appear. Cops don't offer up their discovery because they are nice guys. I have read that if you choose to ignore the citation, you put it straight in the shredder and take NO action whatsoever.

    Maybe the OP can come back and tell us why he never got a second Notice if that is divulged to him. For the meantime, at least inquire about lawyering up.
  • 01-29-2014, 11:25 AM
    themadnorwegian
    Re: Can You Challenge a Red Light Camera Ticket Based on Later Removal of the Camera
    Quote:

    Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    I find it hard to believe that their normal protocol is to only send out one Notice of Violation and not follow through with a second, or certified mail.

    It may be hard to believe, but I've already cited the section of the vehicle code that deals with a Notice to Appear from an AETS. As long as the notice is:

    1. on a form approved by the Judicial Council, and
    2. mailed within 15 days of the alleged infraction, and
    3. mailed to the registered owner's address on file with the DMV, and
    4. is mailed with a proper certificate of mailing, and
    5. an exact duplicate of the notice is filed with the a magistrate of the court


    Then this constitutes a complaint to which the defendant may enter a plea.

    I dislike red light cameras. They were recently removed from my city after the council got tired of getting complaints from citizens, and evidence mounted that they don't actually do much for safety. The best thing that somebody can do, aside from handling their tickets promptly, is to contact your city council members and state legislators. They're the ones who change the laws. I'd rather that the police and courts follow the law, instead of making it up as they go along. But that also means that we need to be proactive about getting bad laws changed. Highway Robbery has a section on action and legislation. If you haven't already, I'd take the time to look through that.
  • 01-29-2014, 11:47 AM
    BrianGC
    Re: Can You Challenge a Red Light Camera Ticket Based on Later Removal of the Camera
    Quote:

    Quoting themadnorwegian
    View Post
    It may be hard to believe, but I've already cited the section of the vehicle code that deals with a Notice to Appear from an AETS. As long as the notice is:

    1. on a form approved by the Judicial Council, and
    2. mailed within 15 days of the alleged infraction, and
    3. mailed to the registered owner's address on file with the DMV, and
    4. is mailed with a proper certificate of mailing, and
    5. an exact duplicate of the notice is filed with the a magistrate of the court


    Then this constitutes a complaint to which the defendant may enter a plea.

    I dislike red light cameras. They were recently removed from my city after the council got tired of getting complaints from citizens, and evidence mounted that they don't actually do much for safety. The best thing that somebody can do, aside from handling their tickets promptly, is to contact your city council members and state legislators. They're the ones who change the laws. I'd rather that the police and courts follow the law, instead of making it up as they go along. But that also means that we need to be proactive about getting bad laws changed. Highway Robbery has a section on action and legislation. If you haven't already, I'd take the time to look through that.

    I was just mailed a similar citation from a nearby city. I can attest that those two mailings, one from the police dept. and the other from the courts, did not meet the requirements of #4. Neither were sent with a 'certificate of mailing.' I knew that particular city did not allow the citations to be ignored so I went on their website so see my smiling face. I also knew that judges in that city allowed the courts to file against those that ignored the citations. But if I planned on ignoring it, I never would have visited their website.

    I retained a lawyer for $250 to handle it for me. We'll see on Feb 14, how effective he is. At least one person here hopes I crash and burn. We'll see.
  • 01-29-2014, 02:37 PM
    themadnorwegian
    Re: Can You Challenge a Red Light Camera Ticket Based on Later Removal of the Camera
    Quote:

    Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    I retained a lawyer for $250 to handle it for me. We'll see on Feb 14, how effective he is.

    I'm curious how your attorney plans on handling the situation. Did he mention what his plan was? If he's going to attack your citation on the grounds that the proof of service is defective, and thus it doesn't constitute a valid complaint, he needs to file a demurrer prior to your arraignment. If he does go that route, and your demurrer is sustained, would you be willing to redact the personally identifying information and post a copy? I'm particularly curious what authorities he'll use to support his position.
  • 01-29-2014, 06:45 PM
    BrianGC
    Re: Can You Challenge a Red Light Camera Ticket Based on Later Removal of the Camera
    Quote:

    Quoting themadnorwegian
    View Post
    I'm curious how your attorney plans on handling the situation. Did he mention what his plan was? If he's going to attack your citation on the grounds that the proof of service is defective, and thus it doesn't constitute a valid complaint, he needs to file a demurrer prior to your arraignment. If he does go that route, and your demurrer is sustained, would you be willing to redact the personally identifying information and post a copy? I'm particularly curious what authorities he'll use to support his position.

    I'm not sure what his strategy is. I doubt it is proof of service. He did say my intersection is the best for him to defend in that city. I will definitely ask him afterwards how he did it (or didn't do it) but if I had to guess I think he has a relationship with the PA (or equivalent). All he told me was he strives for a full dismissal, but if that is not possible, he says it is relatively easy to get it reduced to a non-moving violation and the fine cut in half. Something tells me that the PA does not want to fight every citation that crosses his desk, that's why he is willing to reduce them and be done with it. IMO, it is not all about whether someone is guilty of a violation or not. There are politics, scheduling, and work load involved. But if you choose to fight them in court, the PA and the judge will rake you over the barrel just for wasting their time when they both know you could have taken the reduced fine beforehand. Just my thoughts, but I will report back after I pick my attorney's brain.
  • 01-31-2014, 02:02 PM
    themadnorwegian
    Re: Can You Challenge a Red Light Camera Ticket Based on Later Removal of the Camera
    Quote:

    Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    I had to guess I think he has a relationship with the PA (or equivalent). All he told me was he strives for a full dismissal, but if that is not possible, he says it is relatively easy to get it reduced to a non-moving violation and the fine cut in half. Something tells me that the PA does not want to fight every citation that crosses his desk, that's why he is willing to reduce them and be done with it.

    It's true that the DA wants to spend the minimal amount of effort on a case to secure a conviction. This is why it's possible to get a plea bargain in some misdemeanor cases by being willing to look like you'll take the case to trial, especially if it's not a strong one for the People. However, in California the DA isn't required to attend court for traffic infractions. (People v. Carlucci (1979) 23 Cal.3d 249, People v. Daggett (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, People ex rel. Kottmeier v. Municipal Court (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 602) With this in mind, it has never been clear to me how traffic attorneys manage to negotiate these deals. The DA is not involved. The court does give a lot more latitude to their own officers, as opposed to pro se defendants, but there are still rules. Maybe your attorney plays golf with the traffic commissioner, or something.
  • 01-31-2014, 03:14 PM
    That Guy
    Re: Can You Challenge a Red Light Camera Ticket Based on Later Removal of the Camera
    Quote:

    Quoting themadnorwegian
    View Post
    With this in mind, it has never been clear to me how traffic attorneys manage to negotiate these deals.

    They may in very extreme cases... Such as when they have a defendant who carries a commercial license, gets cited and it turns out it might end up getting him terminated, the attorney then approached the officer with the consent of the court to see if there is anything that can be done to change it to a non-mover. It also helps that for a commercial driver, there are many more "equipment violations" that can be substituted (keeping a logbook is one easy one). But guess what... Not only is that attorney going to charge an arm and a leg (if your job is depending on it would you pay? Sure!), the offer that is made involves a much higher fine than what it would have been for the underlying/original violation. But to say that it happens on a regular basis, or that the attorneys handle such cases "in bulk" (So Cal's exact words, not mine)? Or that they only charge $250 for such a privilege? Or that they can promise you (a) a dismissal or (b) a reduction to half the fine? Someone is hitting the crack pipe way too many times to even dream of such outcome!

    In fact if you think about it, the fact that there are no avenues where one can explore the possibilities to negotiate such plea deals as we hear about in other states might be one reason why most attorneys would decline to take on an infraction case... Too much work and no reasonable chance for a quick deal...

    So Cal simply improvises all this on the spot, TMN.... And he certainly isn't shy about doing such a miserable job of it! This is merely a way for him to try and prove me wrong because I stated that there are no "traffic attorneys" in California and the ones who might take on a traffic infraction case are going to charge in excess of $1500... So he's adamant about providing that there is a traffic attorney in the LA area whom he retained for $250 to defend him in a red light camera case. Actually, he started with a story about his neighbor hiring an attorney in SAN DIEGO of all places, for a measly $100... No, I didn't leave out a zero, it is -according to him- One Hundred Dollars- to defend her against a Red Light Camera ticket... And yet anyone who knows anything about traffic cases in California knows that the statements he makes in connection can only show that he must be hallucinating! Keep in mind I myself have told him numerous times that California traffic cases are often adjudicated without the presence of a prosecuting attorney.

    Its actually been a hilarious couple of weeks... I was cracking up so hard yesterday my sided hurt...

    When you get some time, take a look at the following thread and you'll realize the depth of ignorance some people might be living through (this is where he challenges me as to what a "survey" means)... Needless to say, I was busy that day and couldn't reply, although Carl handled the facts much better than I could have... Can an Officer Assigned to Desk Duty Still Testify in Traffic Court
  • 01-31-2014, 05:26 PM
    BrianGC
    Re: Can You Challenge a Red Light Camera Ticket Based on Later Removal of the Camera
    Quote:

    Quoting That Guy
    View Post
    They may in very extreme cases... Such as when they have a defendant who carries a commercial license, gets cited and it turns out it might end up getting him terminated, the attorney then approached the officer with the consent of the court to see if there is anything that can be done to change it to a non-mover. It also helps that for a commercial driver, there are many more "equipment violations" that can be substituted (keeping a logbook is one easy one). But guess what... Not only is that attorney going to charge an arm and a leg (if your job is depending on it would you pay? Sure!), the offer that is made involves a much higher fine than what it would have been for the underlying/original violation. But to say that it happens on a regular basis, or that the attorneys handle such cases "in bulk" (So Cal's exact words, not mine)? Or that they only charge $250 for such a privilege? Or that they can promise you (a) a dismissal or (b) a reduction to half the fine? Someone is hitting the crack pipe way too many times to even dream of such outcome!

    In fact if you think about it, the fact that there are no avenues where one can explore the possibilities to negotiate such plea deals as we hear about in other states might be one reason why most attorneys would decline to take on an infraction case... Too much work and no reasonable chance for a quick deal...

    So Cal simply improvises all this on the spot, TMN.... And he certainly isn't shy about doing such a miserable job of it! This is merely a way for him to try and prove me wrong because I stated that there are no "traffic attorneys" in California and the ones who might take on a traffic infraction case are going to charge in excess of $1500... So he's adamant about providing that there is a traffic attorney in the LA area whom he retained for $250 to defend him in a red light camera case. Actually, he started with a story about his neighbor hiring an attorney in SAN DIEGO of all places, for a measly $100... No, I didn't leave out a zero, it is -according to him- One Hundred Dollars- to defend her against a Red Light Camera ticket... And yet anyone who knows anything about traffic cases in California knows that the statements he makes in connection can only show that he must be hallucinating! Keep in mind I myself have told him numerous times that California traffic cases are often adjudicated without the presence of a prosecuting attorney.

    Its actually been a hilarious couple of weeks... I was cracking up so hard yesterday my sided hurt...

    When you get some time, take a look at the following thread and you'll realize the depth of ignorance some people might be living through (this is where he challenges me as to what a "survey" means)... Needless to say, I was busy that day and couldn't reply, although Carl handled the facts much better than I could have... Can an Officer Assigned to Desk Duty Still Testify in Traffic Court

    I, as well as probably many others here, are tired of you calling me a liar, among other juvenile names.

    Two weeks ago you never heard of an attorney that specializes in traffic law. Now you seem to know all the traffic lawyers in the LA, Orange and San Diego Counties, what they are capable of, what they charge, what their track records are and how they negotiate and try cases. Boy, you've come a long way in only two weeks. You also claimed you know my particular attorney, yet you fail to disclose his initials. Why?

    I have no interest in misleading anyone here. I also have no apprehension with disclosing to everyone here whether my attorney is successful or not next month. But I predict that if I come back with a dismissal or a reduction, you will refer to me as you do others that prove you wrong…you'll just call me a liar.

    Why I respond to your posts - I don't know. :wallbang:
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:46 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2004 - 2018 ExpertLaw.com, All Rights Reserved