Just to get these two points out of the way, let me FIRST say that if you think that most people who come on here seeking advice are truly “forthcoming” and honest, then you really aren't too observant at all, maybe even more gullible than what you are trying to infer in your last post. But we both now better, TMN so why pretend?
In addition, and if you think I was “threatening” with anything I have stated, then you would be completely wrong. Of course I cannot and will not dictate what might or will happen. But I can and will continue to do what I can to make sure that the truth, the facts and the scope of this ruling, remains to within the limits of the basis under which it was issued. If you think I am wrong in doing so, then so be it... I think it came to a point in this thread where we agreed to disagree on several points. You can add one more entry to those points.
In all honesty, and while it took a lot of effort to get through much of what we discussed here, and throughout that time, I had had the impression that you were as much after the truth as I was, that you were expecting a valid and appropriate ruling and that any interpretation of such would be based on the facts of this case. And because of that I couldn't care less if my understanding was wrong. In fact I still don't care whether I was wrong or right. And no, much to the disappointment of the OP , my ego is quite intact. At least I have an ego, I still have my self respect, and I still am after the truth... Which is quite different than what he has and what he is clearly after.
Little did I know that while we were discussing vehicular crossings, 23334, 23250, studies but not surveys, the OP was manipulating the facts of this case by making it seem that there was a survey but it was not presented in court, and therefore his guilty verdict must be reversed. Of course I could not control what he submitted to the court. And you could deny this as much as he will, but when he submitted his CR143, his “proposed statement on appeal”, he was already aware that a survey did not exist, he was already aware that what he originally thought was a survey turned out to be a study. And yet he never mentioned any of that. Again, not my place to suggest or decide what he should present or what he shouldn't. But if in my opinion, I think he lied, then you can rest assured that I will epxresss my opinion and I will stick by it.
What is even worse than his big lie, is the fact that I had never even anticipated that you would see as blatant an attempt to twist the facts as the OP has attempted here after his ruling, (when he was attempting to explain things to me for the last time -as he described it-), and not only to have you turn a blind eye to it, but to post your view that I need a time out because what I am doing might prevent future posters from being forthcoming?
Frankly, TMN, you can continue to side with your claim that there is a presumption. You can continue to affiliate your stance with what Quirky analogized on here, but when you do, always remember that things may not seem to be what there are at first glance... What is that saying... “all that glitters, isn't gold”. Well, while it is not my intention to offend or insult anyone, while I would rather have this thread continue to fall further and deeper into the archives here, while I would rather avoid having to rehash and re-quote any more to try and convince you of what should have been obvious months ago, I think I would like to take one more stab at it but not to have you change your mind, no. Clearly and with the way you turned a blind eye to the bullshit that the OP is purporting, you needed this decision even more than the OP did. So go ahead and gloat, go ahead and sing “victory” with the OP, but rest assured that this victory was not based on an existing presumption, it was not based on factual basis of the laws as they were intended, it was based on yet another attempt by Quirky to demonstrate how he would attempt to turn laws backwards in an attempt to make a case out of nothing and regardless of how ridiculous an attempt it may seem. In other words, feel free to brag about you and Quirky agreeing there is a presumption, but do yourself a favor before you undertake such bragging rights... Re-read the information that Quirky posted. And understand that while he was styraight forward and matter of fact with you that there was a presumption, the information he was posting in response to me indicated nothing but a hypothetical. But don't believe me... Read through it yourself:
Here is Quirky's first post in this thread:
1) Quirky's “contrarian” perspective;
2) He ignores 23334 (even though it is the basis for how this speed limit was established in this case and without it being center stage this appeal has no basis);
3) He refers to the “STUDY” as the “survey”;
4) he describes what we later determined to be a “Maximum prima facie speed limit” as a PF limit;
5) He misrepresents the speed limit as being 55mph possibly in his attempt to simply distance it (or Is it bring it closer) from (to) being a maximum limit by any means when in fact it is 50 mph and it is in every sense of the word a maximum speed as far as the type of limit it represents. Only that it is a maximum limit that is not represented by any of the 3 statutory authorities declaring max speed limits (22349(b) for the 55mph limit, 22349(a) for the 65 mph limit or 22356 for the 70 mph limit).
That was not the end of Quirky's argument.... After you posted immediately after that post saying exactly what you refuted much later on in this thread, that 40802 lists several statutes upon which its definitions apply and yet none of those reference 23334 as being under the scope of 40802... This is the exact post where you got lost... This is where you stopped making any rhyme to any reason. It was like you had been brainwashed!
Quirky had pulled the wool over your eyes (no disrespect intended) and all you could see from then on was a “presumption”. This is in spite of even more of Quirky's handy work. Not only did he manipulate and misrepresent the FIVE main elements in this case (listed above) but in post #23, he claims that the DOT cannot purport what it wants, as that would not be kosher?
Well, the DOT did not purport anything, it did not enact 23334, instead the state legislature did. In it and similar to the authority that the legislature granted the DOT or local authority to establish speed limits pursuant to 40802 under certain circumstances, it also granted the DOT the authority to establish some sped limits under circumstances that are“less common and less treaded upon. And it is those rare exceptions that differentiated this case from any other California speed trap case that I am aware of”.
As if it wasn't enough to misrepresent the language of the statute, Quirky also opted to provide a case law citation which he misrepresented the precedent it is known for, as his way to bolster his misrepresentation of the meaning of 23334 having granted the DOT with proper authority. In support of these convoluted conclusions, he cited People v. McClain whereby he claims that McClain was overturned simply because the court had ruled that the DOT was not authorized to establish laws which if violated, would result in someone being incarcerated.
Obviously, that was far from being the holding the McClain court had made. While he did actually change his tune a bit, it was still way off. And it appears I actually responded to his same statement twice. Once was here:
...”this is an academic argument”.... “Would be nice to discover more via more document requests for BATA bridges and possibly CPRA requests, but again, not worth it for a hypothetical”
In between all of that his suspicion that 23334 is not Caltrans policy, that it is a district specific or traffic engineer specific, is another stretch simply because 23334 is a state statute, not only a part of some regional policy or one engineer's opinion.
But that was the other angle that Quirky used as the basis for his establishing a “presumption” that really, could not exist simply because the elements required for it to exist are not valid. But that was not the only basis for his “presumption”...
I must say that I will never understand that side of Quirky. Still, had that been a similar idea to what was presented to the appellate here, at least I would give it an A for creativity. What actually transpired gets and A for being underhanded and sinister, and it gets a big FAT F for being honest and much less than forthcoming.
While I have heard of “contrarian theories” as part of an investment strategy, I have never heard the term being applied to a legal analogy. So I don't how you assumed he had proved his presumption and to say you were convinced of his presumption would be an understatement. As for a n “arguendo”, that is defined as I am sure you already know as an alternative theory that a defense attorney might use to offer a theory, all while not admitting anything. But in the way Quirky used it, it ended up with a presumption being a fact and what are clearly facts getting flushed down the drain.
Still think that you and Quirky agreed and therefore that must mean I am wrong? Still want to latch onto a “presumption” that was clearly a figment of someone's imagination, a contrarian theory and part of an arguendo? Please, don't let me influence your decision in any way. All of these facts are there for your review. But please do me a favor, when you affiliate yourself with the OP and while you condone his behavior of being underhanded and dishonest, it isn't me that is grouping you with anyone... You are doing that on your own!
- - - Updated - - -
In the meantime, if you want respect? Earn it... Then again, I simply despise lies and those who tell them... so it maybe too late for you!