|
|
| |
| |
On 17 Feb 2004 09:50:47 -0800, waidoan@hotmail.com (Wai Doan Hsu) wrote:
But judges are going to be highly skeptical of someone who comes in
with a story to the effect that the person driving is not himself, but
he doesn't know who was driving his car. You should at least be
prepared with an explanation of why it is that you do not know (and
would not be expected to know) who was driving.
That's not what I said. I said that I cannot tell with any degree of
certainty from the picture who was driving. It looks like somebody I
know (and her sister too) but I cannot say that I can tell that from
the picture.
Please post a follow-up and let us know how well this defense works.
My guess is that, at the very least, the judge is going to find you in comtempt
because of your disingenuous BS answers. You *know* who you loaned your car to
on the date the photo was taken; given that list of people, you can make a
pretty accurate determination as to who it is in the photo.
If you loaned your car to this same person and he damaged the car, you wouldn't
be having all this trouble figuring out whom to bill for the repairs...
--
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy.
|
| |
| |
Scott in Aztln wrote:
My guess is that, at the very least, the judge is going to find you in comtempt
because of your disingenuous BS answers.
I don't think a traffic court commisioner has that power. He'd have
to go hunt up a real judge.
--
This account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack.
I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me
and it bounces, a second try might work.
However, please reply in newsgroup.
|
| |
| |
In article <i2i5301efu1u3mm4ke1sa3fo9j414h57fu@4ax.com>,
Scott in Aztln <newsgroup> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2004 09:50:47 -0800, waidoan@hotmail.com (Wai Doan Hsu) wrote:
But judges are going to be highly skeptical of someone who comes in
with a story to the effect that the person driving is not himself, but
he doesn't know who was driving his car. You should at least be
prepared with an explanation of why it is that you do not know (and
would not be expected to know) who was driving.
Please post a follow-up and let us know how well this defense works.
My guess is that, at the very least, the judge is going to find you in comtempt
because of your disingenuous BS answers. You *know* who you loaned your car to
on the date the photo was taken; given that list of people, you can make a
pretty accurate determination as to who it is in the photo.
What answers? He doesn't have to answer anything; he's the
defendant. The state has failed to make its case, and the state's own
evidence (the picture) introduces doubt.
Unless he's in one of the many states where the traffic court is
represented by an icon of a kangaroo, in which case he might as well
just bend over.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
|
| |
| |
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:<40331040.1079@sprintmail.com>...
Scott in Aztln wrote:
I don't think a traffic court commisioner has that power. He'd have
to go hunt up a real judge.
A "commissioner" has so many powers as his commission grants him.
Usually those are all the powers an elected judge would have in the
same position. For just about all purposes, a Superior Court
(including Traffic Court, which is just a division of Superior Court)
commissioner in California *is* a judge.
--
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
Christopher Green wrote:
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:<40331040.1079@sprintmail.com>...
A "commissioner" has so many powers as his commission grants him.
Usually those are all the powers an elected judge would have in the
same position. For just about all purposes, a Superior Court
(including Traffic Court, which is just a division of Superior Court)
commissioner in California *is* a judge.
Well -- he COULD find in contempt. But he can't PUNISH
you without finding a real judge. His powers do not
include imprisonment.
|
| |
| |
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:<40331040.1079@sprintmail.com>...
Scott in Aztln wrote:
I don't think a traffic court commisioner has that power. He'd have
to go hunt up a real judge.
Furthermore, there's nothing BS about telling the truth. I was not
driving and the picture is not clear enough to tell with reasonable
certainty who was driving.
However, all I really have to do is defend myself. I am entitled to a
trial by written declaration, and all I have to do is present a
statement to defend myself. I will not be asked (since there is no
question on the form that asks who was driving if I was not the
driver) and there's no reason for me to even bring it up.
I can furnish a copy of my Driver License, which is a matter of record
and can be verified by them. I can also provide photographs of me in
the car with a front view and view from the side with the door open to
establish a clear size difference.
I can't think of any reason I would want to appear before a judge,
although I have that option.
|
| |
| |
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in
news:o3mdnXKRa7FMF67dXTWc-g@speakeasy.net:
My guess is that, at the very least, the judge is going to find you in
comtempt because of your disingenuous BS answers. You *know* who you
loaned your car to on the date the photo was taken; given that list of
people, you can make a pretty accurate determination as to who it is
in the photo.
What answers? He doesn't have to answer anything; he's the
defendant. The state has failed to make its case, and the state's own
evidence (the picture) introduces doubt.
Unless he's in one of the many states where the traffic court is
represented by an icon of a kangaroo, in which case he might as well
just bend over.
First, it's not a criminal case, so the "reasonable doubt" rule doesn't
apply in most states. In many states that allow radar cams or red light
cams, the law is written such that if the driver's identity can not be
determined from the photo, the car's owner can be held responsible for the
infraction. The owner usually has the option of sucking up the ticket, or
identifying the actual driver. The court doesn't really care which option
the owner takes.
|
| |
| |
Christopher Green wrote:
A "commissioner" has so many powers as his commission grants him.
Usually those are all the powers an elected judge would have in the
same position. For just about all purposes, a Superior Court
(including Traffic Court, which is just a division of Superior Court)
commissioner in California *is* a judge.
Owww! Arty smacked down in public yet again ...! He must
be a sick masochist to keep posting such a habitual stream
of bull#@($ legal analysis.
|
| |
| |
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
Christopher Green wrote:
Well -- he COULD find in contempt. But he can't PUNISH
you without finding a real judge. His powers do not
include imprisonment.
And I supposed a $$ fine isn't punishement, eh?
You really have gone psycho lately Arty, are you on drugs?
You argue like you are ...
|
| |
| |
Wai Doan Hsu wrote:
Furthermore, there's nothing BS about telling the truth. I was not
driving and the picture is not clear enough to tell with reasonable
certainty who was driving.
Arty prefers to willingly take the cock of the gov't deep inside his guts,
then beg for more.
However, all I really have to do is defend myself. I am entitled to a
trial by written declaration, and all I have to do is present a
statement to defend myself. I will not be asked (since there is no
question on the form that asks who was driving if I was not the
driver) and there's no reason for me to even bring it up.
Arty likes to play the snitch, cowerning in fear unde the shadow of
big brother.
I can furnish a copy of my Driver License, which is a matter of record
and can be verified by them. I can also provide photographs of me in
the car with a front view and view from the side with the door open to
establish a clear size difference.
I can't think of any reason I would want to appear before a judge,
although I have that option.
|
| |
| |
"=> Vox Populi " wrote:
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
Well -- he COULD find in contempt. But he can't PUNISH
you without finding a real judge. His powers do not
include imprisonment.
And I supposed a $$ fine isn't punishement, eh?
I'm not SURE a traffic commissioner can issue a
fine for anything other than a traffic offense,
which contempt of court is not.
|
| |
| |
"=> Vox Populi " wrote:
Arty prefers to willingly take the cock of the gov't deep inside his guts,
then beg for more.
Libel. However, since no-one believes Voxy, there are
no damanges possible.
|
| |
| |
In article <40350F50.B535897F@sprintmail.com>,
Arthur L. Rubin <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote:
"=> Vox Populi " wrote:
Libel. However, since no-one believes Voxy, there are
no damanges possible.
Obviously merely figurative language (as the government doesn't have a
cock), therefore not libel.
(Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer)
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
|
| |
| |
Matthew Russotto wrote:
In article <40350F50.B535897F@sprintmail.com>,
Arthur L. Rubin <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote:
Obviously merely figurative language (as the government doesn't have a
cock), therefore not libel.
Fair enough. He's posted some which COULD be taken literally,
but it's still the case that no-one believes Voxy.
|
| |
| |
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
"=> Vox Populi " wrote:
Well -- he COULD find in contempt. But he can't PUNISH
you without finding a real judge. His powers do not
include imprisonment.
I'm not SURE a traffic commissioner can issue a
fine for anything other than a traffic offense,
which contempt of court is not.
Typical, Arty just shots excrement out his blowhole
not being sure it is even correct or applicable to the
case/topic at hand.
|
| |
| |
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
"=> Vox Populi " wrote:
Libel.
Wrong again Arty, the statement would have to be false.
However, since no-one believes Voxy, there are
no damanges possible.
Right conclusion ... but for the wrong legal reason.
If the statement were false, it then would have
to lower the reputation of that individual in the eyes
of the public. Since the public has seen what a prevaricating
cretin you are via your own postings, it would be extremely
difficult to lower your reputation below that where you have
yourself placed it.
Better luck next time, Arty.
--
.... ours is a sick profession marked by incompetence,
lack of training, misconduct and bad manners. Ineptness,
bungling, malpractice and bad ethics can be observed
in court houses all over this country every day ...
these incompetents have a seeming unawareness of
the fundamental ethics of the profession.
--Chief Justice Warren Burger
|
| |
| |
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
Matthew Russotto wrote:
Fair enough. He's posted some which COULD be taken literally,
but it's still the case that no-one believes Voxy.
Sure Arty ... and your elephant will be flying in no time ...
|
| |
| |
"=> Vox Populi " wrote:
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
Sure Arty ... and your elephant will be flying in no time ...
Anyone want to contradict me and say they BELIEVE him/her?
|
| |
| |
|
