ExpertLaw.com Forums

Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California

Printable View

  • 02-25-2014, 03:05 AM
    droid
    Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: CALIFORNIA

    Hello guys!

    Love this site, a bunch of information within grasp. I came here today to ask for some help. I received a red light ticket in the mail today! I have been driving clean for about a year now and it's funny how a split decision can be very costly.

    I took the light in Santa Clarita,CA where most traffic lights in santa clarita take about 6 seconds to go from yellow to red and this one less than 2. There was a lifted truck in front of me that didn't let me see the light very well. Once it turned in just that instance it went from yellow to red but I was already driving about 30mph and no way to stop. In the video, you can see the big truck and then me trying to stop but it was in fact too late to do so.

    I hear a bunch of stuff about ignoring the ticket and so forth but I don't want it unresolved since I want to have the opportunity to become an officer in the army in a couple of years and they check everything. If you guys have any recommendations I would really appreciate it.

    Thank you!
  • 02-25-2014, 07:42 AM
    That Guy
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    Quote:

    Quoting droid
    View Post
    My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: CALIFORNIA

    Hello guys!

    Love this site, a bunch of information within grasp. I came here today to ask for some help. I received a red light ticket in the mail today! I have been driving clean for about a year now and it's funny how a split decision can be very costly.

    I took the light in Santa Clarita,CA where most traffic lights in santa clarita take about 6 seconds to go from yellow to red and this one less than 2. There was a lifted truck in front of me that didn't let me see the light very well. Once it turned in just that instance it went from yellow to red but I was already driving about 30mph and no way to stop. In the video, you can see the big truck and then me trying to stop but it was in fact too late to do so.

    I hear a bunch of stuff about ignoring the ticket and so forth but I don't want it unresolved since I want to have the opportunity to become an officer in the army in a couple of years and they check everything. If you guys have any recommendations I would really appreciate it.

    Thank you!

    Lets start with this question: In this thread, here, "Left on Red Light Video Camera" you stated it was "your cousin" who had received one in Newhall, CA.... Now you're pretending it is you who received it. \

    So were you lying then or are you lying now about who;'s ticket it is? The reason I ask is simply because if you were not the one who was cited then it is very difficult to get the facts from you and it becomes very difficult to answer your questions.

    For example, you're clearly making the part about a 2 second yellow up, but please correct me if I am wrong... which traffic light is it that only has 2 second yellow?
  • 02-25-2014, 05:22 PM
    droid
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    It was me who received the ticket, I'm using my cousins account. As far as the left arrow going from yellow to red in 2; it happened.
  • 02-25-2014, 06:26 PM
    BrianGC
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    Quote:

    Quoting droid
    View Post
    It was me who received the ticket, I'm using my cousins account. As far as the left arrow going from yellow to red in 2; it happened.

    Did you get the citation in the mail yet? If so, look at the top of the photo. It may have very small print. It will have the road speed, your speed, duration of yellow, and the time you missed the red light by etc. The citation I am looking at shows mine to be 3.21seconds yellow (amber) duration (which I verified) and the road speed limit to be 35mph. There is relationship between those two figures.

    There is a minimum on-time for the yellow. It is about 3.2 seconds. What does your citation say the yellow duration is?

    Did you test the timing of the yellow on your phone stop watch or how?

    I doubt the yellow light would be under timed. It would be a simple, foolish and costly mistake on their part. But it has been known to happen.
  • 02-25-2014, 08:09 PM
    That Guy
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    Quote:

    Quoting droid
    View Post
    It was me who received the ticket, I'm using my cousins account. As far as the left arrow going from yellow to red in 2; it happened.

    Well, then go to the Santa Clarita Public Works Department, request a copy of the engineering report for that intersection and try and document that the left arrow signal was set to 2 seconds, and once you do that, take it to court and move for a dismissal. I think you'll find nothing there to support your claim but I suppose you could try!

    You can believe whatever information you want to believe (but unlike others who are posting here, I have no reason to lie about any of this). The minimum yellow phase time as required by law and for a protected left turn or a protected right turn is 3.0 seconds. Which is also the minimum yellow phase time for a straight through approach at 25 mph. Knowing what I know about Santa Clarita, I cannot think of a single signalized intersection where the approach speed is 25 mph. So not only am I doubting your claim about the 2 seconds. I doubt ANY Santa Clarita traffic signal has a yellow time of even the recommended standard 3 seconds simply because all the approach speed are likely to be 40, 45, possibly even 50...
  • 02-25-2014, 11:16 PM
    droid
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    Yea on the mailed ticket, there is RED 0.79 as the number no amber. That guy...I know you answer a lot of questions here, how would you go on to handle this if you were in my shoes?
  • 02-26-2014, 12:04 AM
    BrianGC
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    Quote:

    Quoting droid
    View Post
    Yea on the mailed ticket, there is RED 0.79 as the number no amber.

    There should be more than 0.79 on it.
  • 02-26-2014, 12:51 AM
    That Guy
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    ^^ Even more proof that you're clueless!!!

    Quote:

    Quoting droid
    View Post
    Yea on the mailed ticket, there is RED 0.79 as the number no amber.

    The 0.79 is called the RED TIME which means the signal had been 0.79 seconds in the red phase when you crossed the limit line!

    Quote:

    Quoting droid
    View Post
    That guy...I know you answer a lot of questions here, how would you go on to handle this if you were in my shoes?

    I don't have an answer for your question, but I'll give you a few basic facts...

    You are free to contest the citation if you choose but without any solid defense you are simply selling yourself short. For one thing, fighting it might mean losing the traffic school option which is a big issue to some. But in addition, fighting it means paying the full fine amount in advance... All this while you really have not explained how you came to the conclusion that the yellow phase was only set to 2 seconds. And rest assured that just making the claim does not make it true. Instead, you have to support your claim with some validation otherwise it is meaningless. If you still believe the yellow time is short, i already told you what to do. Get the report, look through it and if its over 3.0 seconds then it looks like you have no defense.

    In the alternative, the few times I have been in court in Santa Clarita, I have seen judges reducing fines to those who appear in court for the arraignment. You may have to ask, but I don't see a reason why your request would be denied and even if it is, all that could end up happening is the judge will say "no". But to assume that I have some sort of answer that will get you a dismissal, or to lie to you like others would about hiring a cheap attorney who can promise me the world? I don't believe that they would exist for "cheap" or that they can make any sort of guarantee to a certain outcome whatsoever. My advice is don't believe everything you read, even ion this forum.

    Other that that, and I cannot and will not decide for you because before I can decide, I'd have to know a list of facts about you, your driving record, whether you are eligible for traffic school or not, how much driving do you do, whether you're employed or not, can afford the fine or not, if you have any other citations that are pending in court, and I could go on and on... But since you know that I answer a lot of questions you should be able to find a lot of my posts and there have been quite a few in the past few weeks that specifically deal with red light cameras. It shouldn't be that difficult to find them and I am sure if you were to read a few, you will know exactly what to do under your current circumstances!
  • 02-26-2014, 07:01 AM
    BrianGC
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    Quote:

    Quoting That Guy
    View Post
    … then it looks like you have no defense.

    What you will find from reading his posts is that the above statement is in every one of them.

    Why someone with that negative outlook would reside on and dominate this site is anyone's guess.

    Quote:

    I'd have to know a list of facts about you, your driving record, whether you are eligible for traffic school or not, how much driving do you do, whether you're employed or not, can afford the fine or not, if you have any other citations that are pending in court, and I could go on and on...
    None of which have any bearing on the citation at hand.
  • 02-26-2014, 11:29 AM
    That Guy
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    Quote:

    Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    What you will find from reading his posts is that the above statement is in every one of them.

    Well, since you're so brilliant (I'm lying to prove a point) then why don't you offer the OP a way out?

    Quote:

    Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    Why someone with that negative outlook would reside on and dominate this site is anyone's guess.

    What you perceive as negative is only a reflection of your outlook on your existence. I am not being negative, just being real. Something that you obviously fail at miserably every day and hence, your need to resort to living the lie that you live!

    Quote:

    Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    None of which have any bearing on the citation at hand.

    You would not understand if I explained it to you... You've already made it clear that you are beyond a level of comprehension of a human being. Case ion point, you ask the OP for "amber time" claiming it should be 3.2 seconds or higher. He returns to tell you there is no amber time but he sees a Red Time which is at 0.79...

    Your response:

    Quote:

    Quoting So Stupid
    There should be more than 0.79 on it.

    Bwahahahahahaaaaaaa.... Cluelesss!
  • 02-26-2014, 11:52 PM
    BrianGC
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    Quote:

    Quoting That Guy
    View Post
    Well, since you're so brilliant (I'm lying to prove a point) then why don't you offer the OP a way out?

    What you perceive as negative is only a reflection of your outlook on your existence. I am not being negative, just being real. Something that you obviously fail at miserably every day and hence, your need to resort to living the lie that you live!

    You would not understand if I explained it to you... You've already made it clear that you are beyond a level of comprehension of a human being. Case ion point, you ask the OP for "amber time" claiming it should be 3.2 seconds or higher. He returns to tell you there is no amber time but he sees a Red Time which is at 0.79...

    Your response:

    Bwahahahahahaaaaaaa.... Cluelesss!

    All my responses will be via PM.

    Your grandstanding has been curtailed.
  • 02-27-2014, 03:00 AM
    droid
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    Honestly I appreciate the help both of you have given me. I don't know what disagreements you guys have but I do see That Guy with 9,000+ posts and to me that says a lot. As far as weighing in my options I have not other option but the obvious. Most of us come to these forums because we have no money to pursue these cases with a lawyer. Although I read some information regarding signs and letting the driver know of a camera nearby ( there weren't any on the intersection) I decided to take my chances with the judge and maybe they will reduce fines. If they cannot reduce the fines I have to work out a community service plan. I was a bad driver 2 years ago but since I have tried my very best to keep out of violations; this red light slipped.

    I'm a college student and have 3 points on my license already but I'm eligible for traffic school. Considering what I read and doing my due diligence, I think best best would ask for and extension then ask for an arraignment and then ask for a reduction in fines and traffic school. If all else fails I believe community service and traffic school would suffice...what do you think?
  • 02-27-2014, 09:29 AM
    BrianGC
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    You are free to believe whomever you wish, whether it is this guy or That Guy. Our disagreements are rooted in which side of the law our advice comes from. Advice can come from a prosecutor's perspective or a defense attorney's viewpoint. They are both valid and true, but I would suspect that the people that come to this site are looking for how they might beat a citation, not to hear how guilty they are. That Guy's overwhelming advice is that the motorist is wrong, the police officer is right, the case has no defense, the motorist is not being truthful about the facts and the citation should be paid in full. I highly disagree those blanket assumptions.

    True, red-light camera citations in LA County can be ignored, but you must be aware of what is involved with that. In your situation, I would not advise that. If you ignore it, it will remain in court records (not DMV), collection agencies may begin to hound you and the Military could see that as a blemish. You must deal with this 'above board'.

    If you have 3 points on your DMV Record you cannot afford another point. Maybe the safest and most expensive way is to plead guilty and request traffic school.

    I just got a red light camera citation and beat it. Everyone here said it could not be done, including the most vocal of them, That Guy. He still will not face the fact that traffic lawyers beat these citations on a daily basis even after I furnished him with proof. If I were you I would do a little more research and call a lawyer that specializes in red light camera citations. Not a regular lawyer that wants $1,000 to get out of his chair. These lawyers can be as little as $100 - $300. Mine said it is easy to get a red light citation reduced to a non-moving violation and get the fine reduced in half. My lawyer did even better, he got it dismissed altogether. Total cost, $250.

    Phone calls are free. Speak to professionals that actually defend these type of citations. Traffic school is not the only way out.
  • 02-27-2014, 10:15 AM
    That Guy
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    Quote:

    Quoting droid
    View Post
    Honestly I appreciate the help both of you have given me. I don't know what disagreements you guys have but I do see That Guy with 9,000+ posts and to me that says a lot.

    There are no disagreements. I simply have very little tolerance for liars (and hence my first response here in this thread). And I think that if anyone is genuinely here to help others, at least consider researching what you post rather than just pretending. And the responses regarding the red light phase time should be a good enough demonstration. I don't know if he's jealous, or simply psychotic but I cannot explain his behavior!

    Back on topic...

    Quote:

    Quoting droid
    View Post
    As far as weighing in my options I have not other option but the obvious. Most of us come to these forums because we have no money to pursue these cases with a lawyer.

    Precisely... Fact is most lawyers would not take a case like this simply because for it to be worth their time, they'd have to charge an excessive ratewhich may be viewed as unethical.

    Quote:

    Quoting droid
    View Post
    Although I read some information regarding signs and letting the driver know of a camera nearby ( there weren't any on the intersection)

    Signs are only an issue for RLC systems which have been installed AFTER January 1st of 2013. Unfortunately, Santa Clarita's system has been in use for several years now!

    Quote:

    Quoting droid
    View Post
    I decided to take my chances with the judge and maybe they will reduce fines. If they cannot reduce the fines I have to work out a community service plan. I was a bad driver 2 years ago but since I have tried my very best to keep out of violations; this red light slipped.

    I'm a college student and have 3 points on my license already but I'm eligible for traffic school. Considering what I read and doing my due diligence, I think best best would ask for and extension then ask for an arraignment and then ask for a reduction in fines and traffic school. If all else fails I believe community service and traffic school would suffice...what do you think?

    Considering the 3 points, and if they are from "a couple of years", then you're still not in danger of getting suspended.. Its 4 points in 1 year, 6 points in 2 years and 8 points in 3 years. But still, you must be paying through the nose for insurance and adding yet another point, makes this entire scenario a no brainer. Traffic school, with or without a reduction is a must... As I said above, I see no reason why you would be denied a fine reduction but if things have changed in the few months that I have not been in SCv court, you should pursue some sort of community service deal. Keep in mind that community service does not eliminate the entire fine, there will be some fees associated with the community service plan and those must be paid in advance of performing the service. Also keep in mind that once you start community service, you are in essence under a court order to perform the hours the judge set up for you, so do not slack because they will kick you out and return your case to court, at which time you can forget any sympathy from the judge.

    Furthermore, and to avoid complicating matters any more as i know might happen with extensions, but whatever you do, do not fail to appear in a timely manner and I think you should be OK.

    That said... You'll have to excuse me for a minute while I take the trash out...




    Quote:

    Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    All my responses will be via PM.

    Two reasons why you do that:
    (1) Because you're a spineless coward who has to hide behind the scenes to perform his misdeeds; and
    (2) Because you're a dimwitted idiot who cannot comprehend the simple meaning of "Do No Send Me Any Private Messages"

    Quote:

    Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    Your grandstanding has been curtailed.

    Your BIG LIE has been exposed!

    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.
    Quote:

    Quoting themadnorwegian
    View Post
    I'm curious how your attorney plans on handling the situation. Did he mention what his plan was?
    Quote:

    Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    if I had to guess I think he has a relationship with the PA (or equivalent).
    Quote:

    Quoting themadnorwegian
    View Post
    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) .
    Quote:

    Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    As you may have read I received a red light camera citation. I retained a traffic attorney to handle it for me and he appeared on it last Friday. He got it dismissed and I finally spoke to him about it this morning.

    He said the prosecutor took one look at it and threw it out.

    Quote:

    Quoting themadnorwegian
    View Post
    What county was this in? The DA doesn't attend traffic court in most large counties in California any longer.
    Quote:

    Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    Orange County, CA. Los Alamitos PD.

    My attorney may not have called him a 'Prosecutor', I don't recall. What he said in those regards is that he did not have to argue my photo clarity with this person, whatever his title is. He said it was instantly dismissed.







    It was explained to you twice that there are no prosecutors present in traffic courts in California. Anyone who's had at least ONE traffic court case knows that. I explained it to you several times since you started posting, TheMadNorwegian explained it to you as you can see, a week or so before you came back pretending your case was dismissed. And yet you say what? "He said the prosecutor took one look at it and threw it out"... Bwahahahaaaa... And then when you get called on your stupid mistake you say what? "My attorney may not have called him a 'Prosecutor', I don't recall."You don't read what is getting posted because you are too busty concocting your idiotic lies. Too busy sending me useless meaningless PMs as if harassing me is going tio improve your credibility. You're an immature, disrespectful pathological liar and I, will make it my lifer mission to expose you in every thread you post in!Not because I care about what you think. But simply because I care about the people who come here for help, not bullshit advice from morons like you!

    As for grandstanding, no grandstanding from or by me... None needed, my knowledge and experience speak volumes... It is clear that you are mistaking my being 100 times smarter than you are for "grandstanding". But that is not the only way I am superior to you... I am honest, I have a high level of integrity, self respect, high morals and I am realistic. You? Your whole existence is one big God Damned LIE!

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote:

    Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    You are free to believe whomever you wish, whether it is this guy or That Guy. Our disagreements are rooted in which side of the law our advice comes from. Advice can come from a prosecutor's perspective or a defense attorney's viewpoint. They are both valid and true, but I would suspect that the people that come to this site are looking for how they might beat a citation, not to hear how guilty they are. That Guy's overwhelming advice is that the motorist is wrong, the police officer is right, the case has no defense, the motorist is not being truthful about the facts and the citation should be paid in full. I highly disagree those blanket assumptions.

    You can disagree all you want... Does not make you right. You disagreed with Carl... A 53 post thread of you arguing with a sergeant supervisor who has worked in law enforcement for over 30 years. One of the most straight forward, honest, down to earth, humble respectable human being anyone could ever know. And you wasted his time with your idiotic drivel as he tried to set you straight!

    Quote:

    Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    True, red-light camera citations in LA County can be ignored, but you must be aware of what is involved with that. In your situation, I would not advise that. If you ignore it, it will remain in court records (not DMV), collection agencies may begin to hound you and the Military could see that as a blemish. You must deal with this 'above board'.

    Talk out of both ends much? They can either be ignored, or they can't be ignored... Which is it?

    Quote:

    Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    If you have 3 points on your DMV Record you cannot afford another point. Maybe the safest and most expensive way is to plead guilty and request traffic school.

    Pretend you have a clue... The pint structure and associated suspension has been explained to the OP... He doesn't have to request traffic school, he can choose that without a request from the court.

    Quote:

    Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    I just got a red light camera citation and beat it. Everyone here said it could not be done, including the most vocal of them, That Guy. He still will not face the fact that traffic lawyers beat these citations on a daily basis even after I furnished him with proof. If I were you I would do a little more research and call a lawyer that specializes in red light camera citations. Not a regular lawyer that wants $1,000 to get out of his chair. These lawyers can be as little as $100 - $300. Mine said it is easy to get a red light citation reduced to a non-moving violation and get the fine reduced in half. My lawyer did even better, he got it dismissed altogether. Total cost, $250.

    Your BIG LIE has been exposed. You offered to send Carl (because he is the only person you'd trust on here) a PM with information confirming your story and .... NOTHING!

    free9man asked you to put up or shut up and you ignored him. He offered to be a neutral party and to look at your "proof", and again, you ignored him.

    Then after calling me a "FRAUD", you started sending me PMs pretending you want to prove to me that you hired an attorney for $250. Well, if I am a fraud, why would you trust me with your personal information?

    Here is your opportunity to start redeeming yourself. If your attorney did such a great job for such a low cost, why not post his contact information? If your story has any legitimacy to it, there is nothing wrong with posting his information, because it is all true, or so you claim. Otherwise, you need to zip it and shut up! Or be humiliated each and every time you mention it! Your choice!
  • 02-27-2014, 10:31 AM
    Welfarelvr
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    One only needs to go to Yelp to find such attorneys. For those who post the fee, a quick glance seems to put it between $200 and $400. The (probably seeded) "reviews" claim wondrous success too. One example:
    http://www.cheaptrafficattorneys.com/ claim most tickets are $219 but they have a special for metro court of $189.

    How can these boys stay in business?
    http://www.bankrate.com/finance/auto...ticket--1.aspx
    Quote:

    For less than the cost of a business lunch, a traffic attorney will take your speeding ticket to court on your behalf. We're not talking about having your family attorney go to traffic court for you -- these traffic ticket lawyers often devote their entire practice to traffic tickets, sometimes handling hundreds per day. Some even offer a money-back guarantee if they fail to get your fine reduced or keep the ticket off your record.
  • 02-27-2014, 11:54 AM
    That Guy
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    Quote:

    Quoting Welfarelvr
    View Post
    One only needs to go to Yelp to find such attorneys. For those who post the fee, a quick glance seems to put it between $200 and $400. The (probably seeded) "reviews" claim wondrous success too. One example:
    http://www.cheaptrafficattorneys.com/ claim most tickets are $219 but they have a special for metro court of $189.

    Have you called? No you haven't.
    Does an online ad guarantee that is the fee they will charge? No it doesn't.
    Did you notice the "MOST TICKETS" in fine print under the $219 ATTORNEY FEE? Probably not!
    You even go as far as admitting that their Yelp ratings are "probably seeded". So what is your point?
    Something else that is not only "seeded", and not only is there no way to verify it, but it is highly misleading as well: Their "Recent Success List".... Did you really expect a "SUCCESS LIST" to include any failures? Or did you expect them to post "Client Fined the Full Fine Amount" or "Traffic School request Denied", or "Officer Was There and his Testimony Was solid"...
    Did you notice that it simply says "WE GO TO COURT FOR YOU"... And then what? Appearing in court does not mean they will win your case. Or will get you a reduction.
    In fact, paying an attorney $219 on a ticket that is $238 so he can get you a reduction (of let us assume 25% which will never happen but let us assume it does $238 X 75% = $178.50... $178.50 to the court + $219 to the attorney = $397.50)... And you still end up with a point on your record. Would you like traffic school to go with that reduction? Add another $50 that makes it a total of $447.50 when in fact you probably could have asked the judge for a reduction, ended up with a $200 fine, paid $50 for traffic school and you're at $250... saving yourself $197.50 You're brilliant!!!

    Want to figure it out for a $490 fine amount?
    $490 X 75% = $367.50 + $219 (assuming he'll represent you for $219 on a 490 ticket) = $586.50 would you like traffic school? Add $50 $586.50 + $50 = $636.50
    Whereas you may have been able to get a reduction to $400... Add traffic school for another $50 and you're at $450, saving yourself $186.50.

    Another option might be a plea deal... But since California traffic infractions are not attended to by a prosecutor, there is no one to plea bargain with. Some attorneys might offer such an option choice for commercial drivers, where they might attempt to negotiate with the officer with the permission of the court. But do you think an attorney, who's representing a commercial licensed driver who's career is on the line if he gets a point on his record is going to charge him $219? Or would you assume he's going to squeeze the blood out of his veins? And as for the plea bargains, do you think exchanging a moving violation for a non-moving violation comes at a cheap price? Or do you think the court, for offering such a privilege might require a higher than normal fine?

    Lastly, a dismissal... When you have the state's witness testify to what he saw, and unless you know of some unknown loophole, the chances of a dismissal is not going to be that viable an option... And you csan rest assured that since traffic lsaws do not change opften enough, and since traffic courts are open to th epublic, there really aren't that many "secret loopholes" that one attorney could keep to himself...


    Quote:

    Quoting Welfarelvr
    View Post
    How can these boys stay in business?
    http://www.bankrate.com/finance/auto...ticket--1.aspx
    Quote:

    For less than the cost of a business lunch, a traffic attorney will take your speeding ticket to court on your behalf. We're not talking about having your family attorney go to traffic court for you -- these traffic ticket lawyers often devote their entire practice to traffic tickets, sometimes handling hundreds per day. Some even offer a money-back guarantee if they fail to get your fine reduced or keep the ticket off your record.

    First of all,, before you ask yourself how can they stay in business, ask this: if these are qualified attorney's who have graduated from law school, managed to pass the bar exam, and are just as qualified as top notch attorneys who can work in the corporate world charging $500 to $1000 an hour, why are they handling traffic matters when they could be banking a load of money every day? My user,, they aren't smart enough or aren't good enough.

    Second, you BOLDED the part about it being For less than the cost of a business lunch... So the OP tells you he cannot afford the fine he is facing, that he needs to request an extension so he can save up, and might possibly have to do community service to pay the penalty. And you're suggesting that a service which would cost $219, should be a viable option... A service which you opted to highlight the part about it costing "less than a business lunch... Because in your opinion this happens to be the target audience for such a service... Tell us WELFARELVR, how much do you spend on a business lunch?

    Third, if you've looked at some of the ones who offer a money back guarantee, you might note that there fees are split into 2 categories... One they will call an application fee for let us say $149.99, the other they might call a service fee for say $49.99. And you go to read their fine print and as it turns out, their money back guarantee only covers the $49.99 part. So for each case they take on, win or lose, they make $149.99.... Pretty lucrative, I must say...

    At any rate, you are obviously still reeling from your three back to back failures to prove anything I said in another thread (about the conspiracy) was wrong... And here you are back at it again.. Keep it coming... I enjoy making others like you look foolish! You might consider looking something that might help the OP! Otherwise, you're only showing what a distraction you are, you're only proving to be a troll!
  • 02-27-2014, 12:22 PM
    Welfarelvr
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    Quote:

    Quoting That Guy
    View Post
    At any rate, you are obviously still reeling from your three back to back failures to prove anything I said in another thread (about the conspiracy) was wrong... And here you are back at it again.. Keep it coming... I enjoy making others like you look foolish! You might consider looking something that might help the OP! Otherwise, you're only showing what a distraction you are, you're only proving to be a troll!

    Um...your lack of knowledge regarding conspiracy is well noted and still incorrect. No matter how many times you rethink the issue you still cannot come up with comprehensible path from the facts to a conspiracy. Please stop embarrassing yourself and let it go. Not telling the police who did the crime, even if you know who did it and agreed not to tell, is not a conspiracy. Add all the facts you want to that, it will still be true. In your last attempt, you tried to make words the courts found well known in the common law to mean completely different things. Sure, you relied on English skills rather than legal ones to come up with your erroneous theory, but that is the difference between a poseur and someone with knowledge.

    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. Before you call someone a liar when he claims he paid what the market seems to advertise is the price for a particular service, you should probably have something other than personal delusions and twisted logical argument. One does not have to be Learnerd Hand to become knowledgeable in a relatively small subset of the law like traffic violations. Your postings more than prove that. The article linked clearly shows how an attorney can make a profitable business focusing on many low paying jobs. You will find this type of value billing service in eviction attorneys too. The jobs, while technical, are often repetitive and only when additional services are required would one not be able to fly on autopilot. You might also look at the economics of legal practice from some internet services like Legal Zoom. When you click on the button on the legal form to "consult" with an attorney, do you know how that works and how much the attorneys who make the call get paid? It is a lot lower than you might think and yet there are many attorneys who make a good living from supplementing their practice at a regular stream of paying clients through such services. (Not "clients" for technical reasons, but users they provide a service for.) I am sure you will have some exclamatory laden response that will argue things are not that way. Since anyone who cares can use resources completely outside of argument to check out the facts for themselves, I will allow you the last word as I do not choose to engage.
  • 02-27-2014, 06:21 PM
    BrianGC
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    Welfareivr,
    You may not be following That Guy's campaign to get me to leave this site but he is well aware of these lawyers. When he kept insisting that I was lying about my case I finally sent him my lawyer's name via PM. You know what he did. He laid low for about a day (that's a long time for him) and then came back and completely ignored it. He would not respond to the plethora of information at his fingertips. He could verify all my lawyer's case numbers, wins, losses, reductions, about fifty Yelp reviews, the amount he charges…everything. For all I know, what I gave him, he may now knows my full name, home address, DOB, DL no., etc. Not a very comforting thought, huh?

    So what does he do with this information about my attorney. He claims he never read it. Then goes on to tell me to never to PM him again. Basically sticking his head in the sand.

    Any reasonable, respectable person knows that if you stand in someone's face and call them a liar, you owe them the opportunity to prove they are not. You don't put your hands over your ears when they show irrefutable proof they are being truthful.

    I'm through with him too. I will not respond to him publicly on this forum. I now deal with him via PM where he cannot grandstand. But do you think he responds to me on a one-to-one unfiltered, PM basis. No way, he won't respond unless he can stand on his soapbox and post to the world.
  • 02-27-2014, 07:18 PM
    That Guy
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    Quote:

    Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    You may not be following That Guy's campaign to get me to leave this site but he is well aware of these lawyers.

    I could care less who stays and who goes. Just as long as this forum remains to be a source of information that is accurate and applicable. Nothing that you have posted in your 200+ posts has or can ever benefit anyone. Your posts are filled with crap for lack of a more empty yet despicable description to use. I had you figured out ever since your first post. And sure enough, even since you have posted nothing but lies and idiotic commentary. You can continue to deny it, but everything I posted to describe you, about you, from you or in any way related to you, is the absolute truth. And you can rest assured that as long as I am able to post, I will continue to expose your lies. You are a compulsive liar and you will not ever change your ways. You can't!

    Quote:

    Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    I'm through with him too.

    Promises promises...

    Quote:

    Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    I will not respond to him publicly on this forum.

    Because you're a spineless slimy coward. You think your PMs bother me? Think again. You're wasting multiples the amount of time sending them that it takes me to delete them. And you're gaining NOTHING!

    If you have something to say, say it out in this forum. But you have no balls and no back bone! No integrity and no self respect. And not a hint of intelligence. A dumb as as well. You're incapable of comprehending the meaning of a simple "Do Not Send Me Any Private Messages you Stupid Jack-Ass".
  • 02-27-2014, 07:56 PM
    searcher99
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    Quote:

    Quoting droid
    View Post
    That Guy with 9,000+ posts and to me that says a lot.

    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?
  • 02-27-2014, 09:55 PM
    BrianGC
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    Quote:

    Quoting searcher99
    View Post
    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.
  • 03-01-2014, 12:43 AM
    themadnorwegian
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    Quote:

    Quoting searcher99
    View Post
    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.
  • 03-01-2014, 08:06 AM
    BrianGC
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    Quote:

    Quoting themadnorwegian
    View Post
    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?
  • 03-01-2014, 10:55 AM
    themadnorwegian
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    Quote:

    Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    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.
  • 03-02-2014, 07:39 AM
    BrianGC
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    Quote:

    Quoting themadnorwegian
    View Post
    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.
  • 03-02-2014, 01:00 PM
    That Guy
    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
    View Post
    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
    View Post
    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
    View Post
    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
    View Post
    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
    View Post
    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
    View Post
    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
    View Post
    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
    View Post
    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
    View Post
    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
    View Post
    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!
  • 03-02-2014, 01:37 PM
    Welfarelvr
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    Quote:

    Quoting That Guy
    View Post
    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.
  • 03-02-2014, 04:01 PM
    themadnorwegian
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    Quote:

    Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    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
    View Post
    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
    View Post
    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
    View Post
    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
    View Post
    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.
  • 03-02-2014, 05:25 PM
    searcher99
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    Quote:

    Quoting That Guy
    View Post
    ...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?
  • 03-03-2014, 05:57 PM
    BrianGC
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    Quote:

    Quoting themadnorwegian
    View Post
    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
    View Post
    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.
  • 03-06-2014, 01:37 PM
    BornAgain
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    In his first post, Droid mentioned that he had heard about ignoring these tickets. For people who, unlike Droid, are not trying to become an officer in the army, here's two ways many California red light cam tickets can be beat:

    1. Check to see if it is a Snitch Ticket, the fake/phishing camera tickets California police send out to bluff car owners into ID'ing the actual driver. Snitch Tickets say, at the top, "Courtesy Notice-This is not a ticket," and you can ignore them! Skeptical? Google: Snitch Ticket.

    2. Were you in the LA area? Even a REAL red light camera ticket from ANY city (including the LA County sheriff, as with Droid's ticket) in LA County can be ignored, as the LA courts do not report ignored camera tickets to the DMV. This was revealed in LA Times articles in 2011. Skeptical? Google: Red light camera no consequence.
  • 03-06-2014, 05:07 PM
    That Guy
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    Quote:

    Quoting BornAgain
    View Post
    Even a REAL red light camera ticket from ANY city (including the LA County sheriff, as with Droid's ticket) in LA County can be ignored, as the LA courts do not report ignored camera tickets to the DMV.

    Are you suggesting that the court reporting the matter to the DMV is the only consequence to ignoring a court order to respond to a notice to appear or pay from a court of law?

    Quote:

    Quoting BornAgain
    View Post
    This was revealed in LA Times articles in 2011. Skeptical? Google: Red light camera no consequence.

    Oh.. The L A Times. and its articles...

    You can choose to believe the L A Times, other people may choose to at least consider what is posted on the court's website with regards to the same citations you just stated can be "ignored"...

    This is from the Los Angeles County Superior Court website (click HERE):

    Quote:

    Quoting BornAgain
    View Post
    Even a REAL red light camera ticket from ANY city (including the LA County sheriff, as with Droid's ticket) in LA County can be ignored, as the LA courts do not report ignored camera tickets to the DMV. This was revealed in LA Times articles in 2011. Skeptical? Google: Red light camera no consequence.

    July 29, 2011: The City of Los Angeles has decided to end its red light camera program on July 31, 2011. The City's action does not stop the processing of outstanding red-light citations. It does not eliminate penalties associated with red-light citations. It does not constitute grounds for a refund of any money paid on such a citation. Anyone issued a red-light citation must resolve it within the specified time limits or face certain penalties as prescribed by law.


    And here is a blank copy of what a Red Light camera citation looks like...

    http://i1086.photobucket.com/albums/...psff519cac.jpg

    Look inside the blue boxes and you will realize that the you are issued a notice to appear in court BY the court, and when such notice includes language stating you MUST respond, that does not mean you can "ignore" it.
  • 03-06-2014, 05:40 PM
    BornAgain
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    OK, whom to believe about the ability to ignore camera tickets in LA County?

    Yes, it is unprecedented that a court would unilaterally decide to "back burner" cases for a certain type of crime. But I see a higher purpose in what they did. I think they needed to be out from under the hundreds of thousands of red light camera tickets so that they could apply their increasingly scarce resources to the important stuff - violent crime and crooked politicians. Or, maybe they just couldn't hold their noses any longer.

    Anyway, on the 'net there's a HUGE amount of solid journalism supporting what I wrote. All anyone (including ThatGuy) needs to do is do the Googles I described above, and read the Times articles, the LA News articles, and particularly the LA Weekly articles and the hundreds of comments attached.

    I guess "Brevity is the soul of wit" is gonna be my tagline.
  • 03-06-2014, 10:18 PM
    BrianGC
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    Quote:

    Quoting BornAgain
    View Post
    OK, whom to believe about the ability to ignore camera tickets in LA County?

    Yes, it is unprecedented that a court would unilaterally decide to "back burner" cases for a certain type of crime. But I see a higher purpose in what they did. I think they needed to be out from under the hundreds of thousands of red light camera tickets so that they could apply their increasingly scarce resources to the important stuff - violent crime and crooked politicians. Or, maybe they just couldn't hold their noses any longer.

    Anyway, on the 'net there's a HUGE amount of solid journalism supporting what I wrote. All anyone (including ThatGuy) needs to do is do the Googles I described above, and read the Times articles, the LA News articles, and particularly the LA Weekly articles and the hundreds of comments attached.

    I guess "Brevity is the soul of wit" is gonna be my tagline.

    Excellent response! My recent red light citation in Orange County (where I couldn't ignore it) showed the problems they have with red light citations.

    I hired a traffic attorney and he got it dismissed due to lack of photographic clarity. But only after the camera company detected my infraction, handed it off to get a police review - which was poorly done, prepared a Violation Notice package, then handed it off to the OC Court which did another mailing. Court Clerks and a Prosecutor were also involved and well paid.

    All these personnel were paid for absolutely no return on the dollar. They blundered it from the beginning all for nothing. And this is done over, and over, and over, every day.

    Instead of throwing the citations in the trash, we should be throwing the red light cameras in the trash. Can you say 'poor return on investment'.

    So what does the CA State Legislature do in response to these broken revenue stream? They hire 'A Guy' to come onto this website to persuade people to pay their citations. Lord help us! How many can he possibly be reaching?
  • 03-08-2014, 04:56 PM
    That Guy
    Re: Red Light Camera Ticket in Santa Clarita, California
    Quote:

    Quoting BornAgain
    View Post
    OK, whom to believe about the ability to ignore camera tickets in LA County?

    You must be more obtuse than what you led us to believe.. Did you not read the notice posted on the L A County Superior Court website? Did you not read this part: Anyone issued a red-light citation must resolve it within the specified time limits or face certain penalties as prescribed by law.

    I choose to believe the court's explanation regarding what "IT" (i.e. the COURT) requires of individuals "IT" ordered to RESPOND (NOT "ignore") to its order in a timely manner. And you should consider that your renewed efforts to mislead people will fail no matter whether you post under BornToday or BornAgain.

    Quote:

    Quoting BornAgain
    View Post
    Yes, it is unprecedented that a court would unilaterally decide to "back burner" cases for a certain type of crime. But I see a higher purpose in what they did. I think they needed to be out from under the hundreds of thousands of red light camera tickets so that they could apply their increasingly scarce resources to the important stuff - violent crime and crooked politicians. Or, maybe they just couldn't hold their noses any longer.

    Anyway, on the 'net there's a HUGE amount of solid journalism supporting what I wrote. All anyone (including ThatGuy) needs to do is do the Googles I described above, and read the Times articles, the LA News articles, and particularly the LA Weekly articles and the hundreds of comments attached.

    Blah Blah, Blah... Only an idiot like you would buy into any of the crap you spew!

    Quote:

    Quoting BornAgain
    View Post
    I guess "Brevity is the soul of wit" is gonna be my tagline.

    Oh, I've got a better tagline for you... "Idiocy is the mind of a dimwit!"

    Sadly for you though, we are already at full idiotic capacity on this forum... Someone beat you to the position and he's got you beat hands down... Actually, he may even be a bit overqualified to fill that position. A compulsive pathological liar and an idiot. Imagine the impact there.. LOL

    And speaking of the slimy devil...




    Quote:

    Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    Excellent response!

    Bwahahahaaaaa... You wouldn't know the difference if it bit you in the head... Yet you are so pathetically desperate for one single uptick in your favor... So much so that you would come up with even more drivel like this:

    Quote:

    Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    So what does the CA State Legislature do in response to these broken revenue stream? They hire 'A Guy' to come onto this website to persuade people to pay their citations. Lord help us! How many can he possibly be reaching?

    Definitely overqualified!!!

    Quote:

    Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    My recent red light citation... ,,,<<<<SNIP>>>>

    Give it up already... Your story is one big lie... Nobody believes a single word you say!
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:53 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2004 - 2018 ExpertLaw.com, All Rights Reserved