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:435 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
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
People have admitted exceeding the limit but merely doing that in itself DOES NOT qualify as violation of 22350. the courts have held this.
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.
#13. To: James Deffenbach, pinguinite, robin, christine (#11)
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 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
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.
appeals are de novo so no reasoning they use is appealable
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.