See other Resistance Articles
Title: Woo Hoo! I just beat my 6th ticket in court.
Source:
/
URL Source: http://helpigotaticket.com/
Published: Apr 11, 2008
Author: .
Post Date: 2008-04-11 12:36:54 by Artisan
Ping List: *California list* Subscribe to *California list*
Keywords: None
Views: 390
Comments: 29
Man it feels good to not pay a dime, not plead guilty, and not waste a day in 'traffic school'. Screw that! I was taking the dog to the vet last year and got a speeding ticket, for violating VC 22350. (basic speed law). The first thing i did was get the maximum extension, which was 60 days. Then when the extension was drawing to a close I filed for a trial by declaration (through the mail) helpigotaticket.com/declar/index.html and I asked for a BAIL WAIVER so i didn't have to post bail. Basically the trial by declaration is as complex or as simple as you want it to be. I keep it simple, you write on the form that you didn't do it. I said that there was no evidence I met the criteria for violating 22350. Then the witness (cop) is required to submit his case by mail and the judge rules. the judge ruled me GUILTY in my trial by declaration. However, the beauty of a trial by declaration is that you are automatically entitled to a TRIAL DE NOVO helpigotaticket.com/declar/denovo.html The guilty sentence was vacated and the court scheduled a trial in person. Before my trial I use the discovery process by serving the request on the prosecuting attorney. Mail the PA and demand all sorts of records things from the cop: calibration records, certifications, traffic surveys, etc. ( the reason for this is that when they refuse or ignore you, which I guarantee they will, like the arrogant pukes they are, that is grounds for dismissal because it violates your due process rights.) The you wait for your trial date. By this time it's nearly a year later and the cop has either forgotten about it, OR, he remebers submitting paperwork for the trial by declaration, so he thinks he doesnt have to show up for what in reality is a whole new trial. The pig didn't show, case dismissed. ha ha. Happy day. Also I wore my Ron Paul pin to court and got all sorts of positive comments. One guy saw it and blurted out, 'RIGHT ON, RON PAUL!' Turns out he's a constitutionalist, Paul supporter, 911 truther and alex jones fan. A new friend, 'one of us', just from wearing a Ron Paul pin. It's really great to repeatedly have even small victories for liberty, it's heartening. here is my favorite celebration song. Happy friday! ;-D
Poster Comment:
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Artisan (#0)
The pig didn't show, case dismissed. ha ha. Happy day. Way to stick it to The Man! Those petty behavior taxes infuriate me!!
"If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion." ---Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court delivered his opinion on charging captured Confederate officers with treason
Peace man... Does this work in all states - the paper trail. Do they have some form you need to ask for? By the way, I just realized that I didn't have to go to court for at least 5 years. I was stopped for speeding, I think, 4 times since my last ticket but, somehow, they all let me go, a couple with a 'warning citation', whatever that was. Who knows? Maybe I AM good looking and maybe all NJ and PA coppers are homos.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
The site I learned all this from, HTTP://HELPIGOTATICKET.COM is for california, but he has links to other states. this is not that complicated,. I assume every state has extensions which are automatically granted upon request. a bail waiver is usually granted (although they dont have to grant it, in my experience they usually do.) The main thing otherwise is to just read the statute youre charged with violating. No statute simple says the word 'speeding'. this garbage is long and usually easy to beat if you fight smart, for example, 22350 , otherwise known as BASIC SPEED LAW, says this: see what it says? it doesnt claim the person was merely speeding, it says they were endangering person,s property, and that the speed was unsafe given certain conditions. and from the site: People have admitted exceeding the limit but merely doing that in itself DOES NOT qualify as violation of 22350. the courts have held this. so basically you get them with their own minutia. after all, they're LAW ENFORCEMENT. so hold them to their own B.S.
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." You know another thing they do that pisses me off? In court the judge or baliff always tells the crowd, "THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE TO ASK FOR TRAFFIC SCHOOL. IF YOU GO TO TRIAL ITS TO LATE AND YOU CANT GET IT." The judge said it again today. That is a damned lie! look at this CA law: I am thinking about filing a class action lawsuit against the state for fraud and breaking the law, giving false legal advice under the color of authority. they are bearing false witness on purpose so people will just pay them. they are demons or at the very least, demon inspired, and I mean that seriously.
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." You're my hero for the day!
Our citizens do not deserve a President as good as Dr. Ron Paul. What we deserve is higher taxes, more government inefficiency, war, regulations and devalued currency.(me) "I am further of opinion that it would be better for us to have [no laws] at all than to have them in so prodigious numbers as we have." "I'm pro-choice.........on light bulbs!" ha ha. thanks, it's a small thing but it's something. I always say, how are people gonna oppose the REAL ID, CHILD SERVICES, and all sorts of other more serious tyrannies if theyre too lazy to fight a damn traffic ticket? It's good practice.
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." Dude.
"Hello Rothschild's cattle!" ~ Deek Jackson
Way to go, dude!
That is great. I tell people all the time, any money you give the government in the forms of fines, fees and taxes is very much like throwing it down a rat hole.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. This is probably "preaching to the choir" to tell you this but people should never, ever, under any circumstances, admit to the cop who stops them that they were speeding or that they didn't know how fast they were going. As you are well aware "anything you say can and will be used against you, blah, blah, blah." And it is certain that if you admit you were speeding you already waived your right not to testify against yourself (fifth amendment). And if people are so dumb as to tell a cop they "don't know" how fast they were going there isn't much hope for them. At that point he is free to write whatever he wants to on the ticket. How do they rebut it if they "don't know how fast" they were going? One of the best things to say, if you say anything at all, is to reply to the cop when he asks if you know how fast you were going, "My speed seemed reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions." And if you weren't just going outrageously fast and swerving in and out of traffic endangering people--and if you were they have other charges for that--you have not given him any ammo to use against you.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. You're right, i would never admit or concede anything, but this specific point was made in reference to 22350 because many people need to understand the case precedents surrounding it and what is specifically required to beat it. 22350 is the charge that i beat in superior court of appeals. Many of the cases of defeating 22350 charges in court of appeals were because the initial judge specifically initially found defendant guilty based solely on speeding. These convictions are slapped down every time on appeal, because that is not enough. it's not valid, that is not what the law states. so the appelate is confident enough in their knowledge of the law that they can outright admit speeding and stress that that does NOT make a valid conviction. they win every time. Many people simply go into court and babble about where they were going, that they dont believe the cop, etc. sincere but worthless arguements that will never work. But i certainly understand and agree 100% with what you're saying. like one of the other tickets i beat in palm springs, my wife was teasing afterwards., 'but honey! you are guilty, you were speeding!' i replied, "of course i was dear, we're in the middle of f--king NOWHERE on the 10 freeway, who isnt speeding?,.. But this is MURIKA, and the bastards have to PROVE it." lol I will often strike up convos with cops about these isssues if i see them somewhere. they often get frustrated and say 'okay, you get out of it thru a technicality, but you were speeding weerent you? and i reply, well, since we have the presumption of innocence and it is encumbent upon the state to prove their case, not vice versa, you tell me what i was 'guilty of', since i was not convicted? it's fun.
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." you might find this interesting. (Not to sound like i get tickets all the time, i dont.) But i recently got a ticket, not the one referred to in this thread, in which i was pulled over for speeding on the freeway. it was 2 AM on a friday night, and the cop walks up, tells me to roll down my (legally tinted rear) windows, and asks 'where are you going tonight?' I decided to take the position of one of my heros, BRETT DARROW, (must see: video.aol.com/video-detai...rd-camera-rant/2760496520 and us .cnn.com/2007/US/09/21/...ap/index.html#cnnSTCVideo and replied, "why?" I was ordered out of the car and standing on the side of the freeway while his partner gave me the ticket. In court, i questioned the witness (officer) and asked him if he knew why his partner ordered me out of the car, and then i asked him, 'are you under ther impression that there is a law compelling motorists to disclose their personal business and whereabouts to officers when pulled over for a traffic stop?" He replied YES! under oath on the record. he then elabortaed about how if its a certain type of night they have a right to know. so this cop believes people must disclose their personal business and where they are going, coming from, to the cop,. and that motorists are 'breaking the law' if they dont disclose. how does this affect his treatment of what he then views as criminals.? is this bizzare belief an agency-wide belief, and if so, how does this policy affect how such motorists are regularly treated? I thought that was an amazing admission for a cop to make under oath in court, and am going to take it further. this is why i always record the testimony, and since in this trial there was no court reporteer, i informed the judge beforehand i was going to record it and got out my digital recorder. i am having it transcribed by a paralegal i know and will attach a declaration of facts, entering his testimony it into the official record
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." What did the judge say to that answer? anything?
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
the judge was a real piece of work. he did not remark about the officers comments. An interesting point about the judge, he later said i was guilty because he claimed 'you did not deny speeding'. I replied, 'i never admitted speeding'. and he said 'well, you did not deny it either, so i find you guilty'. This is another amazing statement. first of all, the first thing he did in court, was ask me what my plea was, since i had not appeared in person for the original arraignment. So I pled NOT GUILTY. this by definition is a denial of guilt, and the fact that he views lack of testimony as an admission of guilt, that meets criteria for conviction, is even more interesting than what the cop said about the other issue. This stuff used to bother me but now that i have won 6 cases, i find it more of an interesting challenge than bothersome. I will win this case and plan on not only filing an appeal of the phony conviction, but a formal complaint against the officer and letter to the agency regarding the cop and his ignorance of the 5th ammendment and our God given rights.
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." I like your spirit. The judge is an ass.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Thanks. ;-) I love this kind of stuff, when i win it is better than what most guys would feel after, say, their team won a superbowl. I feel great today. , these type things are very meaningful to me.
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist."
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." You are the MAN! Way to go dude, I'm about 3 for 5, and that's essentially being clueless at the time. I ate traffic school on one because I didn't want to go back up to Trinity Co. for the trial and another because I was doing about 105-110 and the officer opined that he was only able to get a pace in at 74. The judge asked if I wanted to do traffic school and it was cheap so I threw in the towel... No more (if I get any). I'm taking your knowledge and storing it for a rainy day :-) A public defender in Sac gave me the heads up on the discovery angle when I contested a Fed "unattended campfire" citation last year, beat that one but boy, when you get in there they lay out the "potential" penalties and it gets a little scary (until in my case I heard the judge essentially opining that the upper limits and prosecution desires were bullshit in the peoples cases being plowed through).
Government blows and that which governs least blows least...
I am glad you stand up for your rights on those bogus charges. Too many people don't.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. I´m surprised the gate guards let you in the courthouse with a recorder. Don´t they normally sieze those so you can´t record the secret trial? As for judges, in an admin court like traffic court they can rule anyway they want. appeals are de novo so no reasoning they use is appealable.
I recently had guards at another court tell me I couldn't bring a recorder in. I asked why, and she sent the sheriffs down , and they explained that it was 'orders from HQ', the county judge. I asked them what law specifically forbade it since i know that CA rules of the court do specifically allow it. They did not know., and said i can take the recorder outside, go in and 'ask' the judge, then go retrieve it if the judge says yes. i will follow up on that one. What do you mean appeals are de novo? I got a trial de novo after my trial by declaration, as is required by law, but APPEALS, themselves are not de novo. I have won in my County superior court of appeals and had the superior court judges phony ruling overturned. , because she did not follow the law regarding speed traps and CVC 22350. This was not a trial de novo, it was an appeal based specifically on the trial and the panel of 3 superior court judges used the court transcipt (which i had demanded) of said trial to reverse her decision. You are not allowed to introduce NEW evidence at an appeal. I can scan the ruling for you if youre interested. here is a small list of cases that have been overturned in CA traffic court MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." At least in MD, though I expect it to be true about anywhere, traffic court is administrative in nature. If you do not like the ruling of the admin traffic court, then you may appeal the decision into circuit court, which is a true judicial court. In "normal" appeals, or appeals in the conventional sense, yes, you can claim that the lower court ruling is wrong because of specific flaws, and you can itemize the defects, and the appeals court rules on each of your claims. However, an appeal of an ordinary traffic court ruling results in a completely new trial. No defects from the original trial are considered. The only thing that is "appealed" is the guilty verdict itself. So you're right, "appeal" may not be the best word since it's a completely new trial. Superior court sounds like a true appeals court for judicial courts, but you certainly would not take a traffic ruling directly to a superior court. Yes, I understand new evidence or arguments are not permitted at that stage. However, false testimony entered in traffic court is still done at the risk of perjury, so if a cop changes his testimony between a traffic court and a circuit (appeals) court, then yes, you should be able to nail him on that in spite of appeals being de novo.
...but you certainly would not take a traffic ruling directly to a superior court I remember you're interested in this type of thing (which is why I pinged you) so I'm not trying to be arguementative, just stating how it is in CA. As the webmaster states, In CA, if you choose to have a 'trial by declaration', through the mail, then if you dont like that verdict you can ask for a trial de novo, (completely new) . which i have done before also. However, if you have a regular trial in person, and you dont like the verdict, you can not get a TRIAL DE NOVO, but you appeal to the County superior court of appeals. (see link above) Such a case is not a trial de novo. it's an appeal and the superior court of appeals does indeed hear those cases., as outlined in the age i linked to. none of those were new trials, they were folks that had been falsely found guilty in the original trial. In my case which I referred to earlier, i had initially refused jurisdiction of the 'traffic commissioner' (in this particular city, the balif has everyone sign a paper stating that they're willing to allow a commissioner to hear the case). I refused to sign, which pissed them off, and they had to send me upstaris to superior court for the speeding ticket. i and the prosecution witness (cop) waited while most people there were dealing with misdemaenor criminal charges, restraining orders, etc. The reason i demanded superior court is because the lower court does not have a court reporter or transcript of proceedings. The superior court judge found me guilty, (falsely) and I appealed it to the county superior court of appeals , in which a 3 judge panel ruled for me and reversed the decision. Most people imagine that this would be difficult, but it's not; I did not even go in person, i submitted all my briefs thru the mail, (except the SETTLEMENT OF STATEMENT ON APPEAL hearing). The county superior court of appeals then mailed me their decision on the appeal of the traffic case. They used the COURT TRANSCIPT, which i had submittted, of the cops answers to my questions to come to their ruling. they actually cited the transcript and certain of his answers in their ruling. Incidentally the arguement i used that won was that i was not guilty of 22350 since the cop did not produce a certified copy of the traffic survey as is required by law when radar is used. thus the court ruled he was literally 'incompetent to tesify', and his radar evidence 'inadmissable'. The cop DID have a trafifc survey in court, but it was not a certfified copy or original, as required by law. I knew this, (thanks to that great free website above), and that is why i had asked him the question.
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." Okay. I certainly am not claiming to know all details across all 50 states. My experience/knowsledge is extremely limited to MD and PA. I'll concede my assumption is that, in general, the first line of trials in traffic matters is purely administrative, and only going beyond that, which requires dedicated resolve on the part of the sheepzin, brings a traffic matter into a true judicial court. In your description, it sounds like the "traffic commissioner" would be that first tier admin court which you bypassed. It sounds like the CA "Superior Court" is on par with MD's "circuit court". So the identity of the various court levels change from state to state too. (Something I knew from contrasting MD & PA courts). Well done, BTW. Fighting the system takes resolve. Part of the reason the scam works is because it's easier for each individual person to pay the relatively modest fine (compared to hiring a lawyer) and be done with it. Looking back, I can see myself being more willing to be a pain to the system if the charge of driving without a license (and more) didn't carry such a serious penalty.
I just came across this, and have just beat a $1059 ticket using helpigotaticket.com myself. Congratulations are in order for you, and the website owner is a great person, taking time out of his day to answer my questions. I am currently fighting my mom's $381 ticket for her too, and his site helps to point me in the right direction. As an avid opponent of the red light camera's (among other absurd and ludicrous traffic laws), I would like to state that I do not give my consent to be governed by a robotic camera hiding behind a glassy eyed lens. In the name of safety? Sheriff's and Police Chief's might like to say it's in the name of safety, but the real reward is the money. When it's the safety versus the money, to steal a line from Pat Bedard, Safety doesn't stand a chance.
Well done, good citizen. Travel in peace.
wow, that's hefty. congrats on beating it. thanks for sharing this info. do let us know of the outcome of your mom's.
welcome to freedom4um. May I ask what your ticket was for? and how did you beat it? and yes, Geo deserves great kudos for his site. Thanks. Keep in touch, i have more ticket info and a lawsuit coming up in CA that you may be interested in.
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist."Aquarius Bump.
#2. To: Artisan (#0)
The you wait for your trial date. By this time it's nearly a year later and the cop has either forgotten about it, OR, he remembers submitting paperwork for the trial by declaration, so he thinks he doesnt have to show up for what in reality is a whole new trial.
#3. To: Artisan (#0)
(Edited)
#4. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#3)
22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.
IMHO, most officers using radar rely so much on the technology that they don't bother to have have a fundamentally sound case to begin with. Two recent court rulings [People v. Huffman (88 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 , 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 820) and People v. Behjat (84 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1)] have held that: No conviction can be sustained unless the record contains substantial evidence supporting each element of the charged offense.
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#5. To: X-15 (#2)
People v Wozniak - both the present language of Vehicle Code section 42005 and People v. Enochs... require trial courts to consider the merits of a defendant's request for traffic violator school whether that request is made before or after conviction.
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#6. To: Artisan (#0)
Michel Eyquem, seigneur de Montaigne (1533–1592)
Joseph Farah (2008)
#7. To: catcher (#6)
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#8. To: Artisan (#0)
#9. To: Artisan (#0)
#10. To: Artisan (#0)
Lord Acton
#11. To: Artisan (#4)
People have admitted exceeding the limit but merely doing that in itself DOES NOT qualify as violation of 22350. the courts have held this.
Lord Acton
#12. To: James Deffenbach (#11)
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#13. To: James Deffenbach, pinguinite, robin, christine (#11)
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#14. To: Artisan (#13)
In court, i questioned the witness (officer) and asked him if he knew why his partner ordered me out of the car, and then i asked him, 'are you under ther impression that there is a law compelling motorists to disclose their personal business and whereabouts to officers when pulled over for a traffic stop?" He replied YES! under oath on the record. he then elabortaed about how if its a certain type of night they have a right to know.
#15. To: robin (#14)
(Edited)
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#16. To: Artisan (#15)
I will win this case and plan on not only filing an appeal of the phony conviction, but a formal complaint against the officer
#17. To: robin (#16)
(Edited)
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#18. To: All (#17)
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#19. To: Artisan (#0)
#20. To: Artisan (#12)
Lord Acton
#21. To: Artisan (#13)
i informed the judge beforehand i was going to record it and got out my digital recorder.
#22. To: Pinguinite (#21)
appeals are de novo so no reasoning they use is appealable
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#23. To: Artisan (#22)
What do you mean appeals are de novo? I got a trial de novo after my trial by declaration, as is required by law, but APPEALS, themselves are not de novo.
I have won in my County superior court of appeals and had the superior court judges phony ruling overturned. , because she did not follow the law regarding speed traps and CVC 22350. This was not a trial de novo, it was an appeal based specifically on the trial and the panel of 3 superior court judges used the court transcipt (which i had demanded) of said trial to reverse her decision. You are not allowed to introduce NEW evidence at an appeal. I can scan the ruling for you if youre interested.
#24. To: Pinguinite (#23)
However, an appeal of an ordinary traffic court ruling results in a completely new trial. No defects from the original trial are considered.
NOTE: As is the case for the rest of this site, this information is for traffic cases in CALIFORNIA. helpigotaticket.com/appeal/i ndex.html
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#25. To: Artisan (#24)
I remember you're interested in this type of thing (which is why I pinged you) so I'm not trying to be arguementative, just stating how it is in CA.
#26. To: Artisan (#23)
#27. To: ZeroState (#26)
#28. To: ZeroState (#26)
$1059 ticket
#29. To: ZeroState (#26)
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest