OT: Traffic Ticket Question

You're wrong but you should be used to that by now.

** Yaawwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnn.....

Wot a jerk off.

What makes you think Big Bang Theory is anything but a US show?

That is not typically true. If you have clear mitigating circumstances, etc they are usually happy to let off someone who deserves it. A friend had been sent notices that the house numbers on his place were too small, but he didn't receive them. For some reason this resulted in his license being revoked and he got pulled over in the next state where they found he was suspended. He got the numbers fixed, got something in writing that he had that straightened out, got his license back from the DMV and was going to court about the driving suspended ticket. Talking to the prosecuting attorney (not just the cop this time) he had to explain all this. The prosecutor asked why he was pulled over in the first place and was told a taillight was out. The prosecutor said, "You are just a menace to society, aren't you?" When the case came before the judge the usual process is to ask the defendant if they are pleading guilty or not guilty first. The prosecutor stepped up and said all charges were being dismissed.

I've never encountered that. Everyone gets their say in court.

But is it in the law?

A friend got pulled over on the beltway for doing the speed limit late at night. NO ONE does the speed limit other than maybe drug smugglers.

I believe that is what I suggested. The request is a movement for a "summary dismissal" meaning no need to hear any further evidence. The real advantage to this is if the judge is happy with the evidence you don't need to risk shooting yourself in the foot with more testimony but if it is denied you can continue with your defense.

Most people have *NO* idea how to plead a case. I have some experience, but not like a lawyer. The lawyer is handicapped by the fact that he has to appear before the judge again and so won't do anything that would make himself look bad and *can't* legally offer any evidence he knows to distort any of the facts. You don't have that limitation.

--

Rick C

** I think he comes from another planet ....

** There are many advantages to having a lawyer represent you, including th em knowing the law, court procedures and staying calm cos they are not pers onally involved.

But, I found there was one big disadvantage in that a lawyer has only been told about what happened and has no personal memory of it. He or she cannot afford to completely trust their client and will back off from a lying wit ness cos they don't know who to believe.

Represent yourself and there is no such issue - plus you know all sorts of details that the lawyer does not and can use them instantly when required.

If you are genuinely innocent, self representation can be you best chance t o prove it.

.... Phil

It doesn't change the fact that only an idiot would would put forth a sitcom to display what happens in real court in this country. Or how to represent yourself pro se.

will help your case. The defense has no such responsibility, of course. "

Only if you file a motion of discovery. Note that the prosecution can also file a motion of discovery on the defense which obliges them to provide all evidence as well, but it is rarely done. Reason, the defense usually just has statements from people which may not affect the case. They simply don't bother.

** That is NOT what I did - you lying POS.

Posted by me, yesterday:

----------------------------------------------------

** This short vid may give an insight into how well that works...

-------------------------------------------------------------

You are way beyond merely retarded.

.... Phil

** Wrong - not in a criminal case.

Note that the prosecution can also file a motion of discovery on the defense which obliges them to provide all evidence as well, but it is rarely done.

** They cannot.

It is contrary to the rule of non self incrimination.

FOAD you crazy old bastard.

... Phil

Phil,

I'm curious. Are you experienced with U.S. court law, or are you extrapolating from Australian experience?

(Both are founded on European "common law", so it's not unfair to extrapolate -- not calling you out, just asking.)

Tim

-- Seven Transistor Labs, LLC Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design Website:

** The rules of discovery in civil and criminal cases in various places are all there to be read on the great www.

The situation in the USA seems not much too different to that here in Australia.

My own experience tells me how to see between the published words.

Evidence control is a police by word.

.... Phil

Not in a criminal case.

I don't know how much you think you know, but filing for discovery is stand ard operating procedure in Ohio. The procedure might be different where you are. But here, if you or your lawyer does not file for discovery they don' t tell you shit.

Another thing about around here, whoa be the really innocent. While sometim es prosecutors have had their feet put to the fire for witholding evidence that may clear the defendant, the cops do it even more. The prosecutor neve r even gets the other evidence.

The way a criminal investigation works in this country is that usually it t akes them five seconds to decide who doe it and then they build up a case a gainst that person, ad ignore evidence of ay other suspects. It is the most efficient way but not perfect of course.

Over the years I have come to the conclusion that there are more innocent p eople in jail than I thought before, and that they do not care. In fact it is good to have the criminals out there committing more crime to support th eir budget, and locking up the innocent supports that budget. There is mone y in cops and robbers. But they miss the target

They make more money missing the target.

I have a pretty good understanding of the just-us system in this area, do y ou ? I have been all through it with those people and know how to handle th em, and they know it. I would have to do something really bad to get them t o arrest me, in fact I got a stack of warrants right now. They know they ar e getting zero money out of me, and they know that I have no intention to h arm anyone. I have been f***ed out of money and whatever but I won't shoot them over it. And these days, most of my actual enemies have died off or mo ved far away. Either way I just let it slide and don't loan out anything an ymore. I lost a floor jack, a shotgun, well over a thousand bucks. Is that worth committing violence over ? After some thought I decided no. But if I decided yes I am sure I could have gotten away with it.

The olman said it pretty well "You don't want to go through life always hav ing to look over your shoulder". Even if someone rips you off, you kill the m, they got brothers and cousins and whatever. When I got robbed and shot, part of this city was terrorised by my family and chosen family. Well that works both ways. And people are not as civil anymore.

In the US, we drive on the right side of the road. So, yes, making a left turn from any driveway does involve crossing oncoming traffic from the left to reach the right side of the road where you want to go.

If you approach the driveway from say 20 yards you may see the sign on the right which is a red arrow pointing left with a line drawn through it. It is also interesting to note that left turns are only illegal on weekends (Saturday, Sunday). I could have turned left any other day and it would be legal. I haven't checked it out yet but I believe if a car is stopped at the exit of the driveway, the sign is out of view. Pedestrians would be in view since you are looking at the sidewalk to the right and not up 15 feet to the rear where the sign is. Anyway, I found a way to contest the thing by electing a "Trial By Declaration" where you submit a written statement of all the details and some low level legal aid will decide the case and not waste a judge's time. I have to pay the fine in advance of $238 and hope to get a refund. So, I'm going to the courthouse tomorrow to get the forms to request a "Trial By Declaration". I won't have to speak to a judge or appear in court.

I think the sign is about 8 feet off the ground and out of view when my truck is sitting at the exit to the parking lot. So, looking to the right for a pedestrian would not bring the sign into view. But I can't be sure about that and I don't want to drive out that way to find out. The police officer was kind to me and noticed I had a cracked windshield and informed me it was a safety violation. I told him I didn't have much money to fix it and he said he understood and let me go on the safety violation. Nice guy, but he still had to make his quota for the day and I get to pay $238. I told the cop I had a 30 year perfect driving record and this ticket was going to raise my insurance rates, and he said I could attend traffic school and get the one point removed from the record and my insurance rates would not go up. But of course the fee for attending traffic school is another $54 so the total is now $392. .

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

I'm not sure about that. I plan to ask for a "Trial By Declaration" where you submit a written statement of the facts and a legal aid decides the case thus not wasting a judge's time. I probably won't win, but might get the fine reduced a few dollars. I served on Jury duty last week, but I wasn't selected. It was a criminal case and I'm glad I wasn't selected since most of these guys are obviously guilty or they wouldn't be in jail and on trial. But the judge doesn't want to hear about that. They always say just because this guy has a record of multiple convictions and is black and grew up in a fatherless home and served 10 years in prison doesn't mean he is guilty in this case and can you put aside your biases and be an impartial jurist and consider only the evidence for this case? I can't do it.

this guy has a record of multiple convictions and is black and grew up in a fatherless home and served 10 years in prison doesn't mean he is guilty in this case and can you put aside your biases and be an impartial jurist and consider only the evidence for this case? I can't do it."

You must, or you do not belong on a jury.

Justice is easier said than done. Reasonable doubt, exactly what is that ? Let's say a case of thievery and he defendant is a previously convicted thi ef, does that mean they do not have to prove their case that he did it this time ? That the simple allegation should put him in prison for decades tot ally unchallenged ?

And the assumption that since he was arrested he is guilty ? This is not ho w the system is supposed to work. If you think that way, please don't ever serve on a jury. It is not like on TV where they spend all kinds of time to find the culprit, using all this high tech shit, they just arrest who they think they can convict. Many times that is a person without the means to h ire a good lawyer.

T

On Apr 24, 2017, billbowden wrote (in article):

One can fix a cracked windshield for small dollars with clear 8-hour epoxy, alcohol, and heat.

Clean the crack area with alcohol; allow to dry. Mix the epoxy well. Warm the windshield with a hair dryer. Apply mixed epoxy along the crack and allow it to be sucked into the crack. Clean excess epoxy off with a fresh razor blade while the epoxy is a gel - not solid, not liquid. Clean after the razor blade with a paper towel damp with acetone. Practice on scrap first. Do not allow epoxy to harden before using the razor and acetone.

I learned this method from a curbsider in Baltimore: bought cars at auction, minimal mixup, sell through the local newspaper ads (would be Craigslist today), repeat.

Joe Gwinn

this guy has a record of multiple convictions and is black and grew up in a fatherless home and served 10 years in prison doesn't mean he is guilty in this case and can you put aside your biases and be an impartial jurist and consider only the evidence for this case? I can't do it."

You must, or you do not belong on a jury.

Justice is easier said than done. Reasonable doubt, exactly what is that ? Let's say a case of thievery and he defendant is a previously convicted thief, does that mean they do not have to prove their case that he did it this time ? That the simple allegation should put him in prison for decades totally unchallenged ?

And the assumption that since he was arrested he is guilty ? This is not how the system is supposed to work. If you think that way, please don't ever serve on a jury. It is not like on TV where they spend all kinds of time to find the culprit, using all this high tech shit, they just arrest who they think they can convict. Many times that is a person without the means to hire a good lawyer.

T

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've served on 2 juries. One as an alternate and the other as a member of the Jury for 12 days. It was a civil case and all they did was argue about money. Some silly contractor tried to cut all the corners and bid 15% lower than the next highest bid to insure he got the contract. But he didn't know what he was doing and blamed the city for not supplying accurate information about soil conditions. So, the defense brought in a professor of geology from MIT who explained how to do the job on a blackboard. And that sorta ended his case. But I actually voted in his favor on one of the questions that asked if the plaintiff had met all the terms of the contract. I thought he had since the job was eventually completed at addiontional costs to the plaintiff. But nobody else agreed with me, so I was outvoted 11 to 1 and he got nothing.

Wow... I have no trouble in judging only on the evidence . Its a fundamental point of justice, and my moral compass.

If Juries systematically took a biased approach approach, then the whole system would collapse. What will happen, is that the state will simply randomly pick from a a pot of criminals, and haul them into court, saying, well, he's has 5 convictions, so he must of done this one as well. Its complete nonsense. The guy might well have zero probability of being guilty.

I agree, with the other poster, you should never serve on a Jury. Period. It is too your credit though, that you own up to the problem. Stick to what you are good at, analog ic design.

-- Kevin Aylward

- SuperSpice