Traffic Ticket in Toronto

Thanks all who responded; requested a trial date today which can take up to
6 months in Ontario for a court date.

I am leaning towards going it alone. Services like X-copper are at best 90%
successful with points not being taken but and they can not guarantee that
the entire charge will be dropped. I guess this is where luck comes in, and
for $300 I think that I will roll the dice.

Just curious for all you lawyers out there, on the ticket the date is
unclear, it could be interpreted as 01/6/2004 or 11/06/2004, can this be
considered a technicality where I can get off, i.e. when was the ticket
issued? Or am I just grabbing at straws?????



"tech27" > wrote in message
o.verio.net...
>
> "HDR" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Just received a ticket over the weekend for failing to stop (a rolling
> > stop)
> > at a stop sign. Will be pleading not guilty and fighting the ticket in
> > traffic court. Question, has anyone ever used X-Copper as a service? Is
it
> > worth the $300 CDN? Any idea if this is a charge that is easily fought,
> > short of the officer not showing up?
> >
> > TIA,
> > HDR
> >
>
> "................finally I said to the cop, Slow right down, stop, slow
> right down, stop...What's the big ****ing deal, I slow down or I stop,
give
> me a ****ing break already! He tells me to get out of the car. When I do
he
> handcuffs me and starts beating me with his baton. While he's whacking the
> **** out of me he asks "Now, do you want me to slow down or STOP ?"
>
> I said please stop and give me the ticket thanks.
>
> (-;
>
> But seriously, it's not a subjective call. In the end it will be your word
> against the cops so you've got a 50/50 chance AT BEST. Your only argument
> could be that you did stop, but perhaps the officer didn't perceive this
> because you were stopped for just a second, (or maybe he was in a moving
> car?). Don't be a wise guy, be very nice and polite and say stuff like
you
> can understand how the office MIGHT have thought that you didn't stop, but
> he was mistaken. Then you'll be at the 50/50 chance. Any suggestions that
> the cop was just plain wrong or an asshole, etc. etc. will kill any chance
> of success. IF you have an excellent record bring that up, otherwise stay
> away from it.
>
> Good luck.
>
> The X-Coppers type guys are best for speeding tickets, because they know
> what questions to ask to cast aspersions on the accuracy of the speed you
> were tagged for. This bit I know from excellent sources, but as for
anything
> else I'm not sure. If it's free to talk to them about your situation then
> why not go and see how you feel?
>
>
> Let us know how it turns out.
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004
>
>

"HDR" > wrote in message
...
out there, on the ticket the date is
> unclear, it could be interpreted as 01/6/2004 or 11/06/2004, can this be
> considered a technicality where I can get off, i.e. when was the ticket
> issued? Or am I just grabbing at straws?????

No, it's not a material point, unless you can prove that you were elsewhere
AND not driving the car on that date. Even if the date is incorrect, it
would be considered immaterial. You would have to respond to questions
(under oath), such as "Were you the driver of the vehicle in question when
you received this ticket?" etc. It just doesn't matter, and the JP will not
be happy about dealing with an amateur F. Lee Bailey grasping at straws to
beat a traffic ticket.

A general rule is that in order to invalidate a ticket, any irregularity
must be such that it would reasonably cast a doubt about the person or
vehicle involved, such as a parking ticket issued for an infraction at a
time when the "no parking" by-law doesn't apply.

Cheers

"HDR" > wrote in :
>
> Thanks all who responded; requested a trial date today which can take
> up to 6 months in Ontario for a court date.
>
> I am leaning towards going it alone.

Good luck, I hope you do well. Is your main hope that the officer doesn't
show, or do you intend to mount a defense?

I tried to protest a ticket in Toronto some years ago. I had talked to
some cops and worked up what I though was a pretty good case. But then the
officer got up on the stand and lied outright about the facts, changed the
whole situation around. I didn't manage to recover from the shock in time
to adjust my defense in any meaningful way.

So my advice is to be prepared.

"Kevin Oberle" > wrote in message
7.142...
> "HDR" > wrote in :
> >
> > Thanks all who responded; requested a trial date today which can take
> > up to 6 months in Ontario for a court date.
> >
> > I am leaning towards going it alone.
>
> Good luck, I hope you do well. Is your main hope that the officer doesn't
> show, or do you intend to mount a defense?
>
> I tried to protest a ticket in Toronto some years ago. I had talked to
> some cops and worked up what I though was a pretty good case. But then
the
> officer got up on the stand and lied outright about the facts, changed the
> whole situation around. I didn't manage to recover from the shock in time
> to adjust my defense in any meaningful way.
>
> So my advice is to be prepared.

Heard a story from a lawyer... a guy got stopped, and he started a tape
recorder, one of those dictation deals. He recorded the conversations.
Later, in court, the officer recounted what happened. The defendant gave
his version. It differed materially from the officer's, and the defendant
had proof that his version was correct. Even though at the root of it, he
was guilty, the officer's testimony was so far to being wrong, that the
judge threw out the case and he got off.

Makes me want to buy a tape recorder for the car.

-Russ.

In a previous posting, "Somebody"
> had the audacity to say:

:Heard a story from a lawyer... a guy got stopped, and he started a tape
:recorder, one of those dictation deals. He recorded the conversations.
:Later, in court, the officer recounted what happened. The defendant gave
:his version. It differed materially from the officer's, and the defendant
:had proof that his version was correct. Even though at the root of it, he
:was guilty, the officer's testimony was so far to being wrong, that the
:judge threw out the case and he got off.

The officer really ought to have been charged with perjury, for
any justice to have been done.

--
E.R. aka SJG aka Ricardo
present location: vancouver bc canada
refugee from the european union's evil bureaucracy

"E.R." > wrote in message
...
> In a previous posting, "Somebody"
> > had the audacity to say:
>
> :Heard a story from a lawyer... a guy got stopped, and he started a tape
> :recorder, one of those dictation deals. He recorded the conversations.
> :Later, in court, the officer recounted what happened. The defendant gave
> :his version. It differed materially from the officer's, and the
defendant
> :had proof that his version was correct. Even though at the root of it,
he
> :was guilty, the officer's testimony was so far to being wrong, that the
> :judge threw out the case and he got off.
>
> The officer really ought to have been charged with perjury, for
> any justice to have been done.

It wasn't that he was lying, his recollection was inaccurate and his notes
were incomplete. The lawyer explaining it basically told me that for a
traffic stop, the testimony of the officer is the main evidence, he is the
only witness. If any doubt can be cast upon the accuracy of that testimony,
on minor charges that is enough to get the case dismissed.

It's not the same as a criminal matter, where additional evidence would be
involved and a perjury charge would be appropriate. In this example case,
the defendant was actually guilty and the judge knew it. However as a minor
charge, the judge was essentially making the point that the officer needed
to be absolutely correct in his report. Basically he got off on the
technicality of the officer's testimony having too many inconsitancies with
proof of such from the defendant.

-Russ.

In a previous posting, "Somebody"
> had the audacity to say:

:It's not the same as a criminal matter, where additional evidence would be
:involved and a perjury charge would be appropriate. In this example case,
:the defendant was actually guilty and the judge knew it. However as a minor
:charge, the judge was essentially making the point that the officer needed
:to be absolutely correct in his report. Basically he got off on the
:technicality of the officer's testimony having too many inconsitancies with
roof of such from the defendant.

That makes sense.

--
E.R. aka SJG aka Ricardo
present location: vancouver bc canada
refugee from the european union's evil bureaucracy

If you know you are not guilty y not go to court?.As for the X-Copper they
will get you off but it will take forever like going to court 3 or 4 time
but they will get u off .
"Vijay Kumar" > wrote in message
om...
> "HDR" > wrote in message
> >...
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Just received a ticket over the weekend for failing to stop (a rolling
>> stop)
>> at a stop sign. Will be pleading not guilty and fighting the ticket in
>> traffic court. Question, has anyone ever used X-Copper as a service? Is
>> it
>> worth the $300 CDN? Any idea if this is a charge that is easily fought,
>> short of the officer not showing up?
>>
>> TIA,
>> HDR
>
> I was in the exact same situation once in Kitchener. I knew that more
> likely than not, the cop will turn up (Kitchener just isn't as busy)
> and decided to see a JP (justice of the peace, a 24 hr
> service)instead. Pleaded my case that I am guilty but that I am a
> responsible driver etc. and had my fine reduced to something like
> $25.00. You may want to try that. If you do decide, the JP is adressed
> as 'your worship'!
>
> Regards,
>
> Vijay