You didn't get that ticket in St. Gabriel, La., huh?
Louisiana easy money off speeding tickets
http://reason.com/blog/2017/07/28/in-louisiana-get-a-speeding-ticket-pay-t
I got a speeding ticket in a school zone last year. No 'begin school zone' signs for 4 streets that allow a turn into the school zone. Well known trap, but not to me unfortunately. It was on TV last week. One ticketed guy presented lots of photos and sworn statements to the judge who ruled it inadmissible, probably because he did not use a lawyer, we know how that works.
Anyway the diversion money here goes to your lawyer. Speeding ticket lawyers charge considerably less than the ticket price and split that amount with the court. They even send you postcards after you get the ticket announcing their service, of course the court helps by making the ticket a public record. And no ding to the driving record.
I love a good money making scheme.
I got a speeding ticket in a school zone last year. No 'begin school zone' signs for 4 streets that allow a turn into the school zone. Well known trap, but not to me unfortunately. It was on TV last week. One ticketed guy presented lots of photos and sworn statements to the judge who ruled it inadmissible, probably because he did not use a lawyer, we know how that works.
Anyway the diversion money here goes to your lawyer. Speeding ticket lawyers charge considerably less than the ticket price and split that amount with the court. They even send you postcards after you get the ticket announcing their service, of course the court helps by making the ticket a public record. And no ding to the driving record.
I love a good money making scheme.
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Yeah, we know how that works - people try to cheap out by not hiring a lawyer but are too lazy or stupid to learn the rules of evidence and attempt to admit evidence that is not reliable, the very sort of thing the rules of evidence were designed to avoid.One ticketed guy presented lots of photos and sworn statements to the judge who ruled it inadmissible, probably because he did not use a lawyer, we know how that works.
Lawyers know how to put evidence in the record. If you are going to go without an attorney, then you better invest a good deal of time learning the rules of evidence. If you don't, then don't start bitching that the system is rigged. You did it to yourself.
A non-lawyer can get evidence in. I have seen it done. I did it myself before I was an attorney. But it takes time and effort to learn how. That is why lawyers spend $120,000 to go to law school for several years and are still learning after years on the job.
But some Louisiana man thinks he can wander in and wing it - loses, then wants to complain that the court is rigged.
Right.:roll:
My ticket was here in San Antonio.
I'm a big fan of using a lawyer for any legal problem. Everyone needs a minimum $10,000 in savings just to handle the simple unexpected things. Of course, that's just a down payment on bigger things.
In Texas, many required court case submittal paperwork forms must be applied for "in proper form" meaning by a lawyer. Lots of things changed 30 years ago with the popularity of several 'do it yourself' legal books.
I'm a big fan of using a lawyer for any legal problem. Everyone needs a minimum $10,000 in savings just to handle the simple unexpected things. Of course, that's just a down payment on bigger things.
In Texas, many required court case submittal paperwork forms must be applied for "in proper form" meaning by a lawyer. Lots of things changed 30 years ago with the popularity of several 'do it yourself' legal books.
MP,
The court system OUGHT to be accessable to the average citizen without hiring a government-sanctioned expert. If the rules are complicated, then they should be taught in public schools with classes available to anyone. If the rules are too complex, then by definition they are rigged. When the state takes advantage of this complexity to increase revenue, then the state loses moral authority to govern and descends into a thugocracy. As people are able to openly record and compare experiences via the Internet, we are rapidly losing respect for the governments and their agents who enforce such rigged systems.
The court system OUGHT to be accessable to the average citizen without hiring a government-sanctioned expert. If the rules are complicated, then they should be taught in public schools with classes available to anyone. If the rules are too complex, then by definition they are rigged. When the state takes advantage of this complexity to increase revenue, then the state loses moral authority to govern and descends into a thugocracy. As people are able to openly record and compare experiences via the Internet, we are rapidly losing respect for the governments and their agents who enforce such rigged systems.
So the court made it an open record and not the state's open records law as passed by the legislature and signed by the governor?
Wrong.If the rules are too complex, then by definition they are rigged.
Evidence rules are complex to ensure the reliability of the evidence that is entered. These rules apply to both sides in a civil case and both sides, including restricting the government, in a criminal case. In fact, the government has many more restrictions on it than does the defense in a criminal case and cannot even force the other side to testify as a civil litigant can.
As to the purpose of the rules of evidence: Not everything somebody wants to claim on the stand is reliable evidence (imagine that).
These rules developed over hundreds of years to ensure that evidence being presented in a case is reliable, not to "rig the system." Sorry, but some out-of-court "sworn statement" from some third party not willing to come submit himself to cross examination, who did not even witness the incident, is something inherently unreliable. Admission of such "evidence" would make the system unfair and subject to much abuse.
An attorney would know if the evidence in those "sworn statements" was relevant and, if so, would know enough to have that person show up in person, under the power of subpoena, if necessary, and permit the other side to cross examine him on the stand. An experienced attorney would also know whether that action is likely to help or hurt your case, just based on his experience in handling such matters.
Sorry if you think that makes the system rigged, but you are just wrong in your premise and therefore in your conclusion.
An awful lot of junk science is considered good and reliable evidence.
I saw a GA guy convicted because of the freshness of his finger print on the victim's doorknob.
Texas is busy throwing out lots of convictions based on junk science, including all bite mark evidence.
I saw a GA guy convicted because of the freshness of his finger print on the victim's doorknob.
Texas is busy throwing out lots of convictions based on junk science, including all bite mark evidence.
Who knows who approved it. Don't matter. Problem is, in my case, and others, after the fine is paid the computer web site shows the offender as delinquent even six months after payment. Lawyer says don't worry about it, its working for those who need it.So the court made it an open record and not the state's open records law as passed by the legislature and signed by the governor?
I've been to court both ways - with protection and without. Won every time. I made decisions twice to go without a lawyer. In both instances told the Court mandated mediator that there was nothing to mediate and I wanted my time in front of the judge. The time I went with a lawyer we were put to the head of the line and got out MUCH earlier. If there is any chance at all of a challenge I go with a lawyer. I've advised clients that were going to go to court with the local attorney that handles everything that they needed a specialist, in both instances where I wasn't listened to (why hire an expert only to disregard their advice?) the client lost because the local GOB lawyer just didn't get the intricacies of that area of the law. It's like everything else in this world - experts exist for good reason.
Well, you stated that the court made it an open record...Who knows who approved it. Don't matter. Problem is, in my case, and others, after the fine is paid the computer web site shows the offender as delinquent even six months after payment. Lawyer says don't worry about it, its working for those who need it.
Are these rules written down somewhere, and is there an educational program that teaches them?Yeah, we know how that works - people try to cheap out by not hiring a lawyer but are too lazy or stupid to learn the rules of evidence and attempt to admit evidence that is not reliable, the very sort of thing the rules of evidence were designed to avoid.
Lawyers know how to put evidence in the record. If you are going to go without an attorney, then you better invest a good deal of time learning the rules of evidence. If you don't, then don't start bitching that the system is rigged. You did it to yourself.
A non-lawyer can get evidence in. I have seen it done. I did it myself before I was an attorney. But it takes time and effort to learn how. That is why lawyers spend $120,000 to go to law school for several years and are still learning after years on the job.
But some Louisiana man thinks he can wander in and wing it - loses, then wants to complain that the court is rigged.
Right.:roll:
sorry if I mislead youWell, you stated that the court made it an open record...
but it is the Municipal Court website
the same turkeys that enter the ticket ought to mark it paid
wonder how many LEO's make an arrest based on a computerized warrant only to find that it is a computer error
we always trust as completely infallible, then blame the computer if an error is exposed
That is an excellent treatise on how badly the system is rigged. A citizen accused of a crime cannot even hope to defend himself with hiring a professional. He will pay the salary of the accuser and the judge. The person who wrote the rules demanding he use a professional, and the judge who enforces them, are part of the same professional organization. And the only acceptable solution is for the accused citizen to pay another member of their organization.Yeah, we know how that works - people try to cheap out by not hiring a lawyer but are too lazy or stupid to learn the rules of evidence and attempt to admit evidence that is not reliable, the very sort of thing the rules of evidence were designed to avoid.
Lawyers know how to put evidence in the record. If you are going to go without an attorney, then you better invest a good deal of time learning the rules of evidence. If you don't, then don't start bitching that the system is rigged. You did it to yourself.
A non-lawyer can get evidence in. I have seen it done. I did it myself before I was an attorney. But it takes time and effort to learn how. That is why lawyers spend $120,000 to go to law school for several years and are still learning after years on the job.
But some Louisiana man thinks he can wander in and wing it - loses, then wants to complain that the court is rigged.
Right.:roll:
And if that isn't racket enough, win or lose the accused citizen pays the bill for all of the above.
The scales of justice can only be balanced when the accuser and the accused have an equal stake in the game. When you drag a man before the court in an attempt to take his life, liberty, or property that should be the ante to play the game. If you lose, you forfeit whatever you sought to take.
Yes, but they are so lengthy and complex that a doctorate degree is required just to begin understanding them properly.Are these rules written down somewhere, and is there an educational program that teaches them?
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but it is impossible not to be ignorant.
Knowing you, this is probably a rhetorical question,Are these rules written down somewhere, and is there an educational program that teaches them?
, but just in case, yes, they are written down in Georgia in statutes, in particular Title 24, which is the Georgia evidence code (don't bother using Google unless you are sure you are looking at the massively overhauled version after HB 24, signed into law in 2011, effective January 1, 2013 - which means the legislature wanted to give attorneys and courts - judges - that much time to learn the new rules before they went into effect).There are a number of courses in it (other than law school) that you do not have to be a lawyer to attend. There are also a number of very good treatises. Milich on evidence (titled "Georgia Rules of Evidence") is a very good one that is updated with an expert intellectual's observations on the new code. There are others.
Nonsense. The learning that goes on even here, with nonlawyers like yourself educating newcomers on Georgia's firearms laws, demonstrates the opposite. The law can be learned if you apply yourself.Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but it is impossible not to be ignorant.
As for your argument about needing to afford a lawyer, you know that if you are indigent the court will "level the playing field" by appointing a lawyer.
After several years of your mentoring and enthusiastic study, I know maybe 1% of what you do. And you know only a portion of the breadth of the law. It is simply not possible for the average citizen not to be ignorant of the law in general.Nonsense. The learning that goes on even here, with nonlawyers like yourself educating newcomers on Georgia's firearms laws, demonstrates the opposite. The law can be learned if you apply yourself.
As for your argument about needing to afford a lawyer, you know that if you are indigent the court will "level the playing field" by appointing a lawyer.
As for the lawyer, I am not indigent so I get to foot 100% of that gigantic bill myself, win or lose.
Putting the average citizen in a courtroom would be like putting them on the defensive line of the green bay packers.
I'm not saying we don't need lawyers in the system, I'm saying the system is broken.
Oh... I don't know...
I've been to traffic court in six states, including Georgia. More times than I can remember at this date. I've prevailed in all of them but one. One. Some were considered "high stakes".
I've had three judges ask if I was studying to be/were a lawyer, depending upon that stage of my life. I've even had a room of lawyers applaud after the cop slammed the door on the way out, after I was pronounced "not guilty" in a supposedly unbeatable RADAR cite, in Cobb County, on Sandy Plains Road. I've also been the recipient of calls from lawyers wanting me to explain to them how I did it.
It's pretty straight forward, if you follow the rules. California was the easiest, with the rules of evidence used in aircraft cites, but that changed when they were allowed to use RADAR.
I've been to traffic court in six states, including Georgia. More times than I can remember at this date. I've prevailed in all of them but one. One. Some were considered "high stakes".
I've had three judges ask if I was studying to be/were a lawyer, depending upon that stage of my life. I've even had a room of lawyers applaud after the cop slammed the door on the way out, after I was pronounced "not guilty" in a supposedly unbeatable RADAR cite, in Cobb County, on Sandy Plains Road. I've also been the recipient of calls from lawyers wanting me to explain to them how I did it.
It's pretty straight forward, if you follow the rules. California was the easiest, with the rules of evidence used in aircraft cites, but that changed when they were allowed to use RADAR.
Truth here! I have eagerly learned from you, Malum, and this site to keep me up on the fine points of Georgia Carry Laws.Nonsense. The learning that goes on even here, with nonlawyers like yourself educating newcomers on Georgia's firearms laws, demonstrates the opposite. The law can be learned if you apply yourself.
Match10, maybe you should write a book on it. I'd buy it. But why were you targeted so many time? Were you a long haul driver?
I imagine that the program to learn the rules is costly and takes a long time to complete.Knowing you, this is probably a rhetorical question,
There are a number of courses in it (other than law school) that you do not have to be a lawyer to attend. There are also a number of very good treatises. Milich on evidence (titled "Georgia Rules of Evidence") is a very good one that is updated with an expert intellectual's observations on the new code. There are others.
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing
A forum community dedicated to Georgia firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Malum Prohibitum
409 Replies
Nemo
355 Replies
seajay
113 Replies
Recommended Communities
