Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
Quote:
Quoting
searcher99
So TG, just in the interest of full disclosure for the benefit of droid and others, are your forum posts part of your official duties working for the California Legislature?
He might be a plant in the Legislature. Why else would someone with so much knowledge of the law pretend that everyone is guilty. Maybe he is on many forums and that's all he does. Maybe he is 'That Guy', 'This Guy', 'The Other Guy', a 'Gay Guy'? Maybe he looks like 'Family Guy'. :D
But I have doubts about him working for them. How can he spend half the day plucking on a silly forum? Wouldn't happen. He only mentioned it one time, then won't bring it up again. It's like he regrets ever saying it…much like his other BS.
Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
Quote:
Quoting
searcher99
So TG, just in the interest of full disclosure for the benefit of droid and others, are your forum posts part of your official duties working for the California Legislature?
You object when other members of this forum engage in ad hominem attacks, but you don't seem to have any problem with a circumstantial ad hominem attack upon others. The truth of a factual statement isn't subject to the viewpoint of the person making the statement. It doesn't matter if I'm a Democrat or a Republican, police officer or defense attorney. If I say "the sun is shining today" either it's true or it isn't. Period.
Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
Quote:
Quoting
themadnorwegian
You object when other members of this forum engage in
ad hominem attacks, but you don't seem to have any problem with a
circumstantial ad hominem attack upon others. The truth of a factual statement isn't subject to the viewpoint of the person making the statement. It doesn't matter if I'm a Democrat or a Republican, police officer or defense attorney. If I say "the sun is shining today" either it's true or it isn't. Period.
So if I said that all of this country's problems are caused by the Democratic Party it wouldn't matter that I was a confirmed Ultra Right Winger?
Personal bias, point of view, and personal experience has a lot to do with one's advice here. Saying something is a fact or that it is the truth is not the end of the discussion as one would infer. Dissecting verbiage in statutes does not determine the outcome of traffic cases. My case proved that but remains ignored by some/most here.
Quote:
If I say "the sun is shining today" either it's true or it isn't. Period.
That statement is totally up for debate.
Are you referring to all day or part of the day?
Where are you referring to?
Can the 'sun shine' through a slight haze or should the sky be absolute blue for the 'sun to shine?'
If the sun is shining above rain clouds and not below, is it still shining?
Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
Quote:
Quoting
So Cal
Saying something is a fact or that it is the truth is not the end of the discussion as one would infer.
There's a difference between fact and opinion. A fact is something that is either true or false. An opinion is subject to interpretation and generally can't be proven true or false. The law makes these distinctions too. In a defamation case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant knowingly made a false statement of fact. Opinions and true statements of fact are protected. When I post, I cite and link to the underlying sources. This means that if anybody doubts the facts or the conclusion that I reach, they can go back and read the source material and make their own informed decision. However, instead of reading the source material that people cite and building a rebuttal based upon the facts, you spend your time attacking the motives of your opponents. Don't expect any sympathy when you complain that other people on this forum are calling you names. You're also casting aspersions and resorting to ad hominem attacks. I have yet to see you make a legal argument or rebuttal using statute, regulation, case law, or secondary legal research.
Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
Quote:
Quoting
themadnorwegian
There's a difference between fact and opinion. A fact is something that is either true or false. An opinion is subject to interpretation and generally can't be proven true or false. The law makes these distinctions too. In a
defamation case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant knowingly made a false statement of fact.
Opinions and true statements of fact are protected. When I post, I cite and link to the underlying sources. This means that if anybody doubts the facts or the conclusion that I reach, they can go back and read the source material and make their own informed decision. However, instead of reading the source material that people cite and building a rebuttal based upon the facts, you spend your time attacking the motives of your opponents. Don't expect any sympathy when you complain that other people on this forum are calling you names. You're also casting aspersions and resorting to ad hominem attacks. I have yet to see you make a legal argument or rebuttal using statute, regulation, case law, or secondary legal research.
Citing statues here do present some facts. But what I see happen is those facts are then used to form an opinionated conclusion. Say for instance with a red light camera citation. A photo is taken of the car behind the limit line when the light turned red. The statute is presented that that is flat out illegal. Then you know what is said next by many here, 'you have a very little chance of beating it'. This is usually said without even exploring a defense. To me, that is misusing a fact to form an unsubstantiated opinion, especially if it comes from a position of no experience in a courtroom or from a position of not following the methods of defense attorneys.
I do not come from a position of reciting statues. Nor do I form conclusions like the above by telling someone they have no chance of beating a citation without looking at all defensive approaches. It is my opinion that many here use the written statutes to inform, and in doing so they also use them to intimidate the OP to concede to defeat and pay the citation. It was used on me and I resented it, saw through it, went on to beat my citation and then was called a liar afterwards. It was just like so many other people that come back and report beating citations that were deemed futile.
Valid arguments and facts can come from both sides of the aisle. What I find here is that the overwhelming majority of the posts are pro-prosecution. That type of advice, to me, is 'motive driven'. If you are interested in the defense side of the equation you should find what That Guy did shameful. To recap: He said there was no such thing as specialized traffic lawyers, they don't work for $250, they lie about their success rate and I was lying about by case outcome. Very strong words. And when I PM'd him my verifiable facts, they were ignored. If that is not 'motive driven,' I don't know what is.
Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
First and foremost, thank you to TMN for continuing to put these fools in their place. It further proves that arguing with them is pointless… One can’t and shouldn’t argue with idiots. But when they are personally attacking me, I have to respond just to keep them in their place.
I can’t say I lay all the blame on them. More so, I blame those who allow them to continue to have a voice to offend and insult. Because by letting them do so, they are not only undermining the value of this forum, but they are also making their own jobs much more cumbersome. But hey, your forum, your job… Don’t let me sway you any!
And now, to respond to the Three Stooges…
Quote:
Quoting
Welfarelvr
Um...your lack of knowledge regarding conspiracy is well noted and still incorrect.
Even if I lacked the knowledge, I can educate myself... As for those who have little to no comprehension skills shouldn't really get themselves stuck in arguments where the topic of discussion is beyond their abilities.... You took one short statement I made about a conspiracy and interpreted it into a statement about conspiracy AND accessory AND aiding & abetting. And that was only the start, you had to pile on more “wrong” by adding in more proof of your mistaken assumption that I meant the conspiracy centered around the act of running the red light.... And that was only in a one paragraph post by you. I tried to explain to you what I meant and how that related to a conspiracy charge. And yet you kept coming back with more assumptions and more additions none of which had any connection to my original statement. I tried getting through to you THREE different times. And each time you responded with a new story and a new set of circumstances. Three times is my limit! You’re on your own!
Quote:
Quoting
Welfarelvr
No matter how many times you rethink the issue you still cannot come up with comprehensible path from the facts to a conspiracy.
How would you know what I was thinking or rethinking? You should go back and reread my posts, better yet, have someone read and explain them to you and you might start to realize that while I repeated the same exact analogy and the same exact explanation to you three times, you, changed your story three different times. The harder you tried to come close, the more miserable of a failure your attempt turned out to be. You cited case law that matched my exact same description and explanation and yet you still are trying to back pedal your way against the current. The other big mistake you keep making is you think you really are some big laws authority... Oh.. Thanks for the lesson about case law (pfft...) and a bigger thanks for finding the cases that supported the exact wording of the plain inconspicuous language of the code section along with the same terminology that I used to explain it!
Quote:
Quoting
Welfarelvr
Regarding the pricing, I only used one example. There are numerous other ones out there for any person who can use the internet to discover. Anyone of them can put your statement to the test without having to wade through another of your tirades.
You offered one example, and I used your example to prove to you how you wasted your time trying to prove anything. The only thing you proved is that anyone following your suggestion would end up padding the pockets of some underachieving attorney who lacks motivation and drive, all while increasing the burden on the defendant. But don't listen to me telling you that you should have simply stayed off the keyboard in this thread, here is your answer from the OP:
Quote:
Quoting
droid
Most of us come to these forums because we have no money to pursue these cases with a lawyer.
^^That^^ ought to shut you up. But it won’t…
To the second stooge:
Quote:
Quoting
searcher99
So TG, just in the interest of full disclosure for the benefit of droid and others, are your forum posts part of your official duties working for the California Legislature?
There really is no bottom to that pit of stupidity that is you... Is there? If this is not the perfect proof of what a dimwitted jack-ass you are, then I don't know what is.
If this your way of finally starting to realize that my opinions and posts are in line with the legislative intent and the purpose behind this state's traffic laws, then yes.... My forum posts are part of my official duty.
But enlighten us all as to why would you assume that it would be a vulnerability that I would have to disclose? After all, the legislature enacted these laws, the intent behind them would be best articulated through an expression of their opinion and an interpretation of each of their several elements?
Its amazing how much hatred you have in you... So much, in fact that it is blinding you from seeing what an idiot a post like yours makes you! Moreover, you speak of full disclosure all while your existence on this forum is propagated by lies, deception, and a misinterpretation of the relevant issues.
To the third stooge…
Quote:
Quoting
So Cal
He might be a plant in the Legislature. Why else would someone with so much knowledge of the law pretend that everyone is guilty. Maybe he is on many forums and that's all he does. Maybe he is 'That Guy', 'This Guy', 'The Other Guy', a 'Gay Guy'? Maybe he looks like 'Family Guy'. :D
Me “Gay”? Rest assured that I am not gay but what does that have to do with my opinions about the law? Even if I was gay, how would that make me wrong or how would it make all your lies any less wrong?
See you could not challenge my knowledge or my experience or my intellect and this is the only way you think you can try to make yourself feel better! You have nothing to offer. ZERO! You’re a pathetic pathological liar and a disrespectful asshole! And you put on so much effort to proving all of it!
Quote:
Quoting
So Cal
But I have doubts about him working for them. How can he spend half the day plucking on a silly forum? Wouldn't happen. He only mentioned it one time, then won't bring it up again. It's like he regrets ever saying it…much like his other BS.
What other BS are you referring to? Just because all you are capable of posting is BS, that does not qualify everyone else’s comments as such! Your presence on this forum is contributing to the level of BS on here, so the longer you are allowed to stay, the higher the level of BS will be.
Quote:
Quoting
So Cal
Personal bias, point of view, and personal experience has a lot to do with one's advice here. Saying something is a fact or that it is the truth is not the end of the discussion as one would infer.
Not to an idiot like you! Only you would take a thread to 53 different posts, and after having things explained to you by a police sergeant (several posts) AND as traffic engineer (post #52) only to then come back to post the same idiotic "fact" that was your initial belief!
Quote:
Quoting
So Cal
Dissecting verbiage in statutes does not determine the outcome of traffic cases.
More idiotic drivel! Are you drooling all over yourself when you are posting crap like ^this^?
Quote:
Quoting
So Cal
My case proved that but remains ignored by some/most here.
Your case is a BIG LIE. And the only thing you proved there was that you are a pathological liar and a dimwit for not understanding what you were told several times by 3 different people.
And while you offered to provide proof that it is real, you still have nothing to show. And no, I don't want your proof... If you feel you have to prove something, do so in a manner where everyone who knows you're a compulsive liar will see it!
Your credibility is shot. You have established nothing here... The unfortunate part is that it must be repeated for every new thread you post in simply to inform these newcomers that you are a worthless piece of crud. And you can rest assured that for as long as I am allowed to continue to post on this forum, your case, the lies that you purport and the nature and scope of this game you are playing on here will not only be my duty to expose, but my privilege as well!
Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
Even if I lacked the knowledge, I can educate myself...
Except that you do not. From a minor correction to what I assumed was ignorance, you have changed it into multiple posts and references where you apparently are unable to learn what the legal issues related to conspiracy are. At some point ignorance moves to stupidity and your intense desire to not be wrong is pusing you to being thought stupid.
Quote:
As for those who have little to no comprehension skills shouldn't really get themselves stuck in arguments where the topic of discussion is beyond their abilities.... You took one short statement I made about a conspiracy and interpreted it into a statement about conspiracy AND accessory AND aiding & abetting. And that was only the start, you had to pile on more “wrong” by adding in more proof of your mistaken assumption that I meant the conspiracy centered around the act of running the red light.... And that was only in a one paragraph post by you. I tried to explain to you what I meant and how that related to a conspiracy charge. And yet you kept coming back with more assumptions and more additions none of which had any connection to my original statement. I tried getting through to you THREE different times. And each time you responded with a new story and a new set of circumstances. Three times is my limit! You’re on your own!
Once again, there is no way on God's green Earth the fact a person does not tell the police the driver of the vehicle, even if he knows and made an agreement not to tell, is a conspiracy. The reason I put in the other inchoate crimes that were related was because at that time I though you reasonably aware of the law and was trying to help you not look like a fool. I know you did not say accessory. I know you did not say aiding & abetting. It's just that it is in no way conspiracy, it is closer to accessory and closer still to aiding and abetting. It is none of those, as I have repeatedly explained. I have explained it in as many ways possible. Yet you still continue. Amazingly, you feel the discussion is beyond MY abilities! You are wrong on what entails a conspiracy.
Quote:
How would you know what I was thinking or rethinking? You should go back and reread my posts, better yet, have someone read and explain them to you and you might start to realize that while I repeated the same exact analogy and the same exact explanation to you three times, you, changed your story three different times. The harder you tried to come close, the more miserable of a failure your attempt turned out to be. You cited case law that matched my exact same description and explanation and yet you still are trying to back pedal your way against the current. The other big mistake you keep making is you think you really are some big laws authority... Oh.. Thanks for the lesson about case law (pfft...) and a bigger thanks for finding the cases that supported the exact wording of the plain inconspicuous language of the code section along with the same terminology that I used to explain it!
Goodness, self-delusional as well. I have never changed "my story" except to accept the additional facts you imagined in order to make a wild grasp at the claim you were not wrong. The problem with the cases you think support your argument is they used the same statute you did and came to different conclusions. You see, as So Cal has complained, you use the statute but you misunderstand what it means. I have shown that through case law in the final instance where your interpretation was NEVER the way the terms were understood by the court and showed that your interpretation would make the law of conspiracy unconstitutional. And, here you are claiming the cases support your position. You truly do work for the Legislature, don't you? No one but someone in the Capitol would think repeatedly saying the opposite of reality shows one is right. I guess you just feel that most readers are lazy and will not check out the facts for themselves. Those who choose to simply read your erroneous protestations on the subject rather than look to the case law or the jury instructions provided deserve to continue to be ignorant.
Quote:
You offered one example, and I used your example to prove to you how you wasted your time trying to prove anything. The only thing you proved is that anyone following your suggestion would end up padding the pockets of some underachieving attorney who lacks motivation and drive, all while increasing the burden on the defendant. But don't listen to me telling you that you should have simply stayed off the keyboard in this thread, here is your answer from the OP:
I offered one example and told people to check it out for themselves. Anyone who cares can open the search engine of their choice and show you are misrepresenting the facts. As to why, I have no idea. All I know is you seem to get increasingly insulting the more wrong you are. But, now that I've written the above I realize I violated my promise to not engage with you. (Well, absent any actual legal claim--which seems incredibly missing from your post.) To those who had hoped I would not further feed a trolling, I apologize.
Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
Quote:
Quoting
So Cal
Citing statues here do present some facts. But what I see happen is those facts are then used to form an opinionated conclusion. Say for instance with a red light camera citation. A photo is taken of the car behind the limit line when the light turned red. The statute is presented that that is flat out illegal.
The statue and related case law is what defines what is and isn't illegal. I don't understand your opposition to presenting a poster with the law that governs their particular charge. You have to argue the law in court. In order to be found guilty of a particular charge, the prosecution has to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The statute defines the elements of the charge. Knowing and understanding the statute is the first step to formulating an effective defense. Once you know what the prosecution must prove, then you need to determine whether or not they have admissible evidence to substantiate the charge, and if any affirmative defenses apply.
Quote:
Quoting
So Cal
Then you know what is said next by many here, 'you have a very little chance of beating it'. This is usually said without even exploring a defense. To me, that is misusing a fact to form an unsubstantiated opinion, especially if it comes from a position of no experience in a courtroom or from a position of not following the methods of defense attorneys.
Except that none of us actually know what experience anybody who is posting here really has. In a previous post, you maintained that individuals on this forum are effectively anonymous. If that's the case, there's no way to guess at their experience unless you believe that anonymous posters on the internet are being candid. If you don't know what somebody's experience is, then the only way to evaluate the truth of their statements and the accuracy of their opinion is to look at the facts that they use to support their position and make a determination for yourself. When I post an opinion, I link to the facts. If you disagree with what I'm saying, then go back and read the facts and and challenge the premise. Questioning the motives of a poster doesn't lead to a better exploration of the facts and better advice, it just leads to sniping.
Since you believe experience is the most important way of gaining knowledge let me ask you this: have you spent time in traffic court either observing the proceedings or arguing your case? In your post about your red light camera ticket, you indicated that you hired a lawyer to appear on your behalf and didn't attend. Have you been before? What was the experience like? I'm not asking these questions embarrass you. I think that if you were to watch traffic trials, you'd come to a similar conclusion.
I attended traffic trials on multiple occasions before I argued my case. When I attended I found that the commissioner didn't understand the law very well, didn't have a lot of respect for the defendants, and favored the police officers. Moreover, few defendants came ready to argue a case based upon the law. They just wanted to argue with the judge or the police officer. Procedures were fast and loose. It was assembly line justice.
If you read the case law around many of these statutes, especially red light cameras, you'll see that with some limited and notable exceptions, appellate courts take positions on these laws that grants expansive enforcement power to the police and the courts. Whether or not either one of us agrees with it, infraction courts are configured to handle large numbers of defendants with simple cases in a short period of time. Appellate courts don't want to burden such cases with lots and lots of additional rules.
With all of that in mind, I don't see the statement that it's difficult to win one of these cases as an exaggeration. It can be done, but it requires an immense amount of preparation, and a lot of luck. The courts treat pro se defendants much differently than they do lawyers. You have argued that lawyers obtain better results than unrepresented defendants. Is it really far fetched to say that an unrepresented defendant will have a difficult time beating a traffic ticket in a system that you admit is stacked against them?
Quote:
Quoting
So Cal
I do not come from a position of reciting statues. Nor do I form conclusions like the above by telling someone they have no chance of beating a citation without looking at all defensive approaches.
How do you know what defensive approaches are available to defendants if you're not relying on legal authority? (Case law, regulation, statute, etc.) How can anybody evaluate the accuracy of your advice if you don't cite your sources?
Quote:
Quoting
So Cal
It is my opinion that many here use the written statutes to inform, and in doing so they also use them to intimidate the OP to concede to defeat and pay the citation. It was used on me and I resented it, saw through it, went on to beat my citation and then was called a liar afterwards. It was just like so many other people that come back and report beating citations that were deemed futile.
This is a matter of perception. Perhaps you chose to be intimidated. I can't control what other people say, but I can control how I choose to react. It seems that you've ascribed hostile motives where none may have existed. When I came to this forum a few years ago, I was given all kinds of information and advice. Some of it good, some of it bad. Is it possible that people where were trying to present as much information as possible to help you learn about how handle your ticket, should you have chosen to do so yourself?
Quote:
Quoting
So Cal
Valid arguments and facts can come from both sides of the aisle. What I find here is that the overwhelming majority of the posts are pro-prosecution. That type of advice, to me, is 'motive driven'. If you are interested in the defense side of the equation you should find what That Guy did shameful.
The reason I engaged you on this point was because you've started to call my motives into question in other posts. That's not going to lead to a constructive discussion, unless you've come here for the express purpose of getting into personal arguments with other members of the forum. I'm citing my sources and I'm open to a discussion of the facts if you think the opinion I've drawn from them is incorrect. This insinuation of ulterior motives is a needless personal attack. I got a lot of help from this forum when I got a ticket, and I'm here to repay that debt of gratitude by providing the most accurate information that I can. That's all.
However, since you've continued to drag this baggage you have with TG along to every single thread let me say this: it's possible to disagree with him respectfully without getting into personal attacks. I don't agree with everything he says, but we're not at each others throats in every single thread. You can go look at my previous posts if you doubt this. Moreover, you can't hold the moral high ground by criticizing you opponent and then simultaneously engaging in the same behavior. If you don't agree with the way that somebody is behaving, then be the change you want to see. As I said before, you're not going to get sympathy when you complain about somebody else's behavior and then attempt to bait them and take swipes as you go.
Finally, court is an adversarial interaction. The sides present arguments and rebuttals. They spar. If the prosecution's side isn't presented here, you're actually putting defendants at a disadvantage. You sharpen your arguments by getting criticism. There's nothing inherently wrong with getting a pro-prosecution response to an argument that you're trying to present in court. Lawyers hold moot courts to practice their skills. Presidential candidates hold mock debates. Practicing your arguments against an intelligent and well trained opponent only makes you better. While TG didn't agree with a lot of the arguments that I was presenting my my case, his criticism unquestionably improved the quality of my arguments.
Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
...yes.... My forum posts are part of my official duty.
So then am I correct in assuming that you are paid by the state for the time you spend posting on this forum?
Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
Quote:
Quoting
themadnorwegian
The statue and related case law is what defines what is and isn't illegal. I don't understand your opposition to presenting a poster with the law that governs their particular charge. You have to argue the law in court. In order to be found guilty of a particular charge, the prosecution has to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The statute defines the elements of the charge. Knowing and understanding the statute is the first step to formulating an effective defense. Once you know what the prosecution must prove, then you need to determine whether or not they have admissible evidence to substantiate the charge, and if any affirmative defenses apply.
The wording of the statute is very important. My concern is that the bold print above is rarely explored at length.
Quote:
Except that none of us actually know what experience anybody who is posting here really has. In a previous post, you maintained that individuals on this forum are effectively anonymous. If that's the case, there's no way to guess at their experience unless you believe that anonymous posters on the internet are being candid. If you don't know what somebody's experience is, then the only way to evaluate the truth of their statements and the accuracy of their opinion is to look at the facts that they use to support their position and make a determination for yourself. When I post an opinion, I link to the facts. If you disagree with what I'm saying, then go back and read the facts and and challenge the premise. Questioning the motives of a poster doesn't lead to a better exploration of the facts and better advice, it just leads to sniping.
When the same generic response is made to every poster that they have no defense it is only logical to question motive. Not saying you do that, I'm not that familiar with your posts. But several others do. As for That Guy, he is very long winded about one's guilt, but never the other way around.
Quote:
Since you believe experience is the most important way of gaining knowledge let me ask you this: have you spent time in traffic court either observing the proceedings or arguing your case? In your post about your red light camera ticket, you indicated that you hired a lawyer to appear on your behalf and didn't attend. Have you been before? What was the experience like? I'm not asking these questions embarrass you. I think that if you were to watch traffic trials, you'd come to a similar conclusion.
I have received more moving violations than anyone I've ever spoken to in my life. I fought at least five of them in my twenties. Beat one. Two were extremely unfair and beatable, but I was too young to know how to do it. As a General Contractor I've sued in small claims court three time, once against the second largest paint manufacturer in the world, Pittsburg Paint. Won the first two and lost against PP due to going over the commissioner's head by discussing surfactant exudation and dew point spreads. But I did get reimbursed for my loss through higher channels within Pittsburg Paint.
Quote:
I attended traffic trials on multiple occasions before I argued my case. When I attended I found that the commissioner didn't understand the law very well, didn't have a lot of respect for the defendants, and favored the police officers. Moreover, few defendants came ready to argue a case based upon the law. They just wanted to argue with the judge or the police officer. Procedures were fast and loose. It was assembly line justice.
If you don't know how traffic court works and how it works against the lay person it usually has dismal outcomes. But it isn't fair to pit a lay person against a judge, prosecutor and cop. I'd much rather see a seasoned lawyer go against them. In my experience, lawyers and prosecutors take the easy road and settle it pre-trial. The courtroom seems to be where ignorant and inexperienced motorists go to be found guilty.
Quote:
If you read the case law around many of these statutes, especially red light cameras, you'll see that with some limited and notable exceptions, appellate courts take positions on these laws that grants expansive enforcement power to the police and the courts. Whether or not either one of us agrees with it, infraction courts are configured to handle large numbers of defendants with simple cases in a short period of time. Appellate courts don't want to burden such cases with lots and lots of additional rules.
Appellate Courts don't always agree with Traffic Courts. Short story that emphasized the 'letter of the statute': My brother gets a red-light camera citation in San Diego County. He's filmed running the red light and then turning back into through traffic. Two offenses. Statute reads driver must follow through with left turn. He did not. Fought it in local court. Lost. Took it all the way to the SD Appeals Court. Jumped through a lot of hoops to take it that far. Won the case. He did not do what the statute cites. So I do know how the letter of the statute is very important. At least in an Appeals court.
Quote:
With all of that in mind, I don't see the statement that it's difficult to win one of these cases as an exaggeration. It can be done, but it requires an immense amount of preparation, and a lot of luck. The courts treat pro se defendants much differently than they do lawyers. You have argued that lawyers obtain better results than unrepresented defendants. Is it really far fetched to say that an unrepresented defendant will have a difficult time beating a traffic ticket in a system that you admit is stacked against them?
It is absolutely stacked against them. But how many posters come back and beat their citations. That Guy calls them all liars, but I'd like to know how they do it. I believe citations are reduced and dismissed far more often than we know. My case: nobody ever looked at my photo to determine required clarity. My lawyer was the first to request that analysis. That's why it was thrown out. IOW, the citation did not meet legal requirements and never should have been issued.
Quote:
How do you know what defensive approaches are available to defendants if you're not relying on legal authority? (Case law, regulation, statute, etc.) How can anybody evaluate the accuracy of your advice if you don't cite your sources?
I believe those areas are just one way to approach a citation. Many other questions can be asked outside of case law and statutes. Who here knew that red light photos are not compared prior to issuing the cite? That is important to know.
Quote:
This is a matter of perception. Perhaps you chose to be intimidated. I can't control what other people say, but I can control how I choose to react. It seems that you've ascribed hostile motives where none may have existed. When I came to this forum a few years ago, I was given all kinds of information and advice. Some of it good, some of it bad. Is it possible that people where were trying to present as much information as possible to help you learn about how handle your ticket, should you have chosen to do so yourself?
No. Hostility started right out of the gate. Similar to a few threads right now. It is a fact that bullish!t citations are being issued. It is very possible those folks most likely do some research on how to defend agains them. That's what brings them here. But how many of them are recognized here as getting a BS citation?
Quote:
The reason I engaged you on this point was because you've started to call my motives into question in other posts. That's not going to lead to a constructive discussion, unless you've come here for the express purpose of getting into personal arguments with other members of the forum. I'm citing my sources and I'm open to a discussion of the facts if you think the opinion I've drawn from them is incorrect. This insinuation of ulterior motives is a needless personal attack. I got a lot of help from this forum when I got a ticket, and I'm here to repay that debt of gratitude by providing the most accurate information that I can. That's all.
As I said, I haven't read enough of your posts. I may have confused you with the others that follow in That Guy's lead. I didn't mean to cast you in that light. If I did, I apologize.
Quote:
However, since you've continued to drag this baggage you have with TG along to every single thread let me say this: it's possible to disagree with him respectfully without getting into personal attacks. I don't agree with everything he says, but we're not at each others throats in every single thread. You can go look at my previous posts if you doubt this. Moreover, you can't hold the moral high ground by criticizing you opponent and then simultaneously engaging in the same behavior. If you don't agree with the way that somebody is behaving, then be the change you want to see. As I said before, you're not going to get sympathy when you complain about somebody else's behavior and then attempt to bait them and take swipes as you go.
He has been very hostile to me and many others that disagree with him. I've tried to ignore him but it is hard. But from now on I do not respond to him publicly. He gets my responses privately now.
Quote:
Finally, court is an adversarial interaction. The sides present arguments and rebuttals. They spar. If the prosecution's side isn't presented here, you're actually putting defendants at a disadvantage. You sharpen your arguments by getting criticism. There's nothing inherently wrong with getting a pro-prosecution response to an argument that you're trying to present in court. Lawyers hold moot courts to practice their skills. Presidential candidates hold mock debates. Practicing your arguments against an intelligent and well trained opponent only makes you better. While TG didn't agree with a lot of the arguments that I was presenting my my case, his criticism unquestionably improved the quality of my arguments.
I agree. I'd like to see both sides express their arguments with respect for each other. The name calling is juvenile and lowers the image of this cite.
- - - Updated - - -
Quote:
Quoting
Welfarelvr
To those who had hoped I would not further feed a trolling, I apologize.
Apology accepted. But don't let it happen again. :)
Do like I do, PM him. He likes it.