Yes I am happy that I have my fine reduced and gained valuable experince. I also want to know more and know how I could have done better.
I hope "ticketcombat" will get a chance and read this and give me some feedback.
Feb 18th, 2009 9:42 am
Yes I am happy that I have my fine reduced and gained valuable experince. I also want to know more and know how I could have done better.
Feb 18th, 2009 10:50 am
Feb 18th, 2009 11:58 am
Feb 18th, 2009 2:54 pm
Feb 18th, 2009 3:08 pm
Thanks for the heart warming comments. Based on the advice from "ticketcombat" my intention was to convince the judge to drop the case or postpond the trial instead of going to trail and get convicted. I did not want to call the officer for testimony which meant trial.roadrunner17 wrote: ↑@ simplylgg
Why didn't you gone ahead and questioned officer how he measured the distance?
If measuring tape was used why it wasn't disclosed?
Nevertheless I appreciate the fact that you showed courage to fight an unfair ticket.
Feb 18th, 2009 4:43 pm
And from the disclosure notes your posted, I had the same impression about the manner that your car was parked, that it was completely blocking the hydrant as viewed from the road side.
Feb 18th, 2009 11:43 pm
No sane person will knowingly park in front of the fire hydrant and I know for fact that I wasn't park the way the officer had drawn in his note indicating that I was obstructing completely the fire hydrant. However, I also knew that I couldn't prove that since it would have been my word against the officer and judge will definitely rule against me. If the system is not fair and everyone knows that many of tickets are just cash grabs, so it is our right to find ways to defend ourselves the same way that the system is trying to convict us and deprive us from our hard earned money.Whitedart wrote: ↑And from the disclosure notes your posted, I had the same impression about the manner that your car was parked, that it was completely blocking the hydrant as viewed from the road side.
If your case had gone to trial, and you were convicted, I doubt there would have been a penalty reduction.
The Justice and the prosecutor hear these cases day after day, week after week, so know all the various ways people try to beat parking or traffic tickets. The prosecutors I know also follow some of the forum discussions like this, and other web sites.
My experience has been that the prosecutor will not bother to proceed if the charge is questionable when you have requested disclosure and appear in court, but if the charge is solid they will not let it go.
Nikita has pointed out valid reasons for an appeal in other threads, but in this case you pleaded guilty with a lesser penalty (1/2 the cost of the ticket) with no insurance or demerit points impact. The fact that you felt intimidated would not be good grounds to appeal due to your lack of experience in court.
Feb 19th, 2009 1:07 am
ticketcombat - thanks for your detailed response! It's much appreciated and I look forward to your draft on red light tickets in the near future. You sir, are an awesome resource and I commend you on your work and generosity in sharing what you know.ticketcombat wrote: ↑ There are several threads on this site already offering a range of advice about what to do. I've just updated my site with specific instructions for seatbelt and stop sign violations. I am working on a draft for red light camera tickets coming soon.
Feb 19th, 2009 1:17 am
Feb 19th, 2009 10:01 am
Thanks chanman for the nice words. I also am greatful to ticketcombat for all his help. Although I didn't have a pleasant experince in court, but I learned some very valuable lessons.
Feb 19th, 2009 11:59 am
I know that we should have closure on this thread but I'm still miffed about the result. I just want to point out that the courts have a duty to explain what's going on to an unrepresented defendant.
Feb 20th, 2009 10:51 am
ticketcombat - let's say simplylgg had taken photos of his car showing that he was not blocking the hydrant. Is that something he could have presented as evidence?simplylgg wrote: ↑No sane person will knowingly park in front of the fire hydrant and I know for fact that I wasn't park the way the officer had drawn in his note indicating that I was obstructing completely the fire hydrant. However, I also knew that I couldn't prove that since it would have been my word against the officer and judge will definitely rule against me.
Feb 21st, 2009 12:41 pm
Feb 21st, 2009 2:41 pm
Interesting case law. I have not seen those before.ticketcombat wrote: ↑I know that we should have closure on this thread but I'm still miffed about the result. I just want to point out that the courts have a duty to explain what's going on to an unrepresented defendant.
The key cases are: When the conviction is overturned the appeal court said the justice didn't explain his decision adequately to the defendant or why he ignored certain statements or evidence. That his explanation wasn't adequate was the grounds to overturn the justice's decision.
Another reason is that the court found that the overriding issue in question is whether or not an unrepresented or self-represented defendant receives sufficient and adequate assistance from the judge to bring the defence into full force and effect.
In other words, they must help you and explain everything to you, not intimidate you. In this case, simplylgg did everything right but was forced into a corner and pressured to back down. This was wrong. Intimidation has no place in a modern court and gives the defendant a disreputable impression of the justice system. In my opinion, this is more than enough to overturn the conviction.
I know that simplylgg doesn't want to appeal. But I want to state that no one should read these posts without realizing that the outcome is not a reflection of the effort put into fighting the charge. simplylgg did an amazing job.
Feb 28th, 2009 2:20 am
Thanks ticketcombat - good to know you *can* bring in a photo to support your case.ticketcombat wrote: ↑Yes but it would be viewed in context. Was it taken at the time of the offence? Did the defendant more the car "a little bit"?
I remember one case where the defendant was charged with blocking a driveway. He submitted a photo showing the front of the vehicle was well back of the edge of the driveway. The ticket and windshield were covered in snow and there was no tire track in the snow to suggest the vehicle had been moved.
The only problem: he was ticketed for blocking the driveway at the rear of the vehicle! His photo "conveniently" left out that section of his car. The best part: he was an off duty cop!
There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)