Assumption of Guilt.

"jaybird" > writes:

>Not at all. In our nation a person has every right to defend
>themselves in court.

But you need recourse to the financial resources of a State to do it.

> You should feel privileged that you can here
>rather than having no recourse as in many other countries.

And the government knows which countries so that they can ship you
there for indefinite detention.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "If we let things terrify us,
X against HTML mail | life will not be worth living."
/ \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.

In article >,
jaybird > wrote:
>
>"Matthew T. Russotto" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> jaybird > wrote:
>>>
>>>"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So it's not a crime, then.
>>>
>>>It depends on what part you're referring to. Civil penalties are not the
>>>same as criminal penalties, making civil law non-criminal.
>>
>>
>> Right. So a $200 "civil" fine is somehow a different penalty than a
>> $200 "criminal" fine?
>
>Nope. Those parts are pretty much the same.

OK, so a $200 civil traffic ticket on your driving record is somehow a
different penalty than a $200 criminal traffic ticket on your driving record?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >,
Brent P > wrote:
>In article >, jaybird wrote:
>
>> Alrighty. Political views and speech are not violations of law, but not
>> mentioning your funding source apparently is.
>
>Until S1 becomes law.

Which part of S1 were you referring to?


--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

jaybird wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>jaybird wrote:
>>
>>>"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>jaybird wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>jaybird wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Dave Head" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>newsgcgr2pj0pto9s7b86l3iqbddq80oje1i0@4ax .com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:09:43 -0600, "jaybird" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>jaybird wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"Brent P" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>news:Q_mdnUMXObmfUSrYnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@c omcast.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1566.asp
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"The legislation, HB 203, also requires that municipalities using
>>>>>>>>>>>>photo
>>>>>>>>>>>>ticketing capture the face of the driver. Once a ticket is issued
>>>>>>>>>>>>to an
>>>>>>>>>>>>accused driver, that motorist will be compelled to appear in
>>>>>>>>>>>>court if he
>>>>>>>>>>>>fails or refuses to pay the ticket -- although no arrest warrant
>>>>>>>>>>>>may be
>>>>>>>>>>>>issued. If a challenge is filed in court, motorists will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>presumed
>>>>>>>>>>>>guilty as "administrative procedures" will be used for hearings
>>>>>>>>>>>>where a
>>>>>>>>>>>>"preponderance of evidence" rather than "beyond a reasonable
>>>>>>>>>>>>doubt"
>>>>>>>>>>>>serves as the standard of judgment."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Come on now, Brent. You've been around us long enough to know
>>>>>>>>>>>some of
>>>>>>>>>>>the major differences between criminal and civil law.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Yup, civil is an easy way to get around some of those pesky due
>>>>>>>>>>process
>>>>>>>>>>requirements.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Due process as it applies to putting someone in jail? Not the same
>>>>>>>>>thing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Due process as in punishing people, whether that punishment is jail
>>>>>>>>or screwing
>>>>>>>>with their finances or anything else that messes up their lives.
>>>>>>>>More and
>>>>>>>>more, governments are finding it convenient to do just that - fine
>>>>>>>>you thru the
>>>>>>>>mail because your _car_ was seen somewhere going this fast or not
>>>>>>>>stopping for
>>>>>>>>a traffic light (even tho you were just getting out of the way of the
>>>>>>>>fire
>>>>>>>>engine that needed to get thru), etc. You get a ticket in the mail,
>>>>>>>>or worse,
>>>>>>>>don't get a ticket in the mail, and get your license suspended for
>>>>>>>>non-response, etc. And... its all about the Benjamins. That's what
>>>>>>>>it is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And we don't want to hear anything about going to court and fighting
>>>>>>>>it,
>>>>>>>>either, because doing that is, in itself, screwing with one's
>>>>>>>>financial
>>>>>>>>situation, and life situation, while taking off work, and is in
>>>>>>>>itself
>>>>>>>>punishment inflicted because the cameras got it wrong. The cameras
>>>>>>>>must not be
>>>>>>>>allowed to get it wrong - the cameras must go - this stuff needs to
>>>>>>>>be enforced
>>>>>>>>by _people_, not a bunch of damn, dumb, error-prone cameras.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If a citation is issued in error, you can contest it in court.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>May you get a camera citation and have it upheld in court by a corrupt
>>>>>>judge. Repeatedly. Asshole.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I wish that smug, self-righteous asshole cops like you could be forced,
>>>>>>just once, to go through all the hassle, expense, and bull**** that Joe
>>>>>>Average Citizen has to go through to fight an undeserved ticket only to
>>>>>>have it stick and have to pay hundreds of dollars in fines, higher
>>>>>>insurance costs, etc. etc. etc. and then maybe you would understand why
>>>>>>we'd just rather you weren't around at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, come on now nate, you should know me better than that after all
>>>>>these years. My smug, self-righteous sounding attitude comes from
>>>>>dealing with liars and whiners all day, not from the refreshing
>>>>>conversations we have in Usenet.
>>>>>
>>>>>I've been driving many years and have never had any problems with
>>>>>tickets.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Because you're a cop!
>>>>
>>>>I've driven many years and only had a *few* problems with tickets... but
>>>>they were all BIG PROBLEMS.
>>>>
>>>>It would have been so nice to have a "get out of jail free" card like
>>>>some people... Your statement that "If a citation is issued in error,
>>>>you can contest it in court" is insulting to anyone who's been there... I
>>>>have. Even though the ticket was dismissed I still lost 20% of my
>>>>vacation days for that year, that's not inconsiderable to me. Plus you
>>>>know if the cop had showed up I would have lost anyway. This is how the
>>>>racket perpetuates itself; it's cheaper to pay than to fight even if you
>>>>are right.
>>>
>>>
>>>The courts have been around for over 200 years. That's just the way that
>>>our system has worked. And no, my profession has had no impact on a
>>>ticket, I just don't put myself in the position to get one.
>>>
>>
>>How is it, then, that I received a citation for driving in a LEGAL manner?
>>I'll tell you... a cop was trying to write a ticket to someone; came
>>flying up behind me trying to get me to speed, and wasn't paying attention
>>to what the speed limit actually was. He was willing to bend the truth a
>>little, as well, or at least rely on dead reckoning rather than the
>>legally required method of pacing. Now tell me how I'm supposed to avoid
>>getting a ticket when there are cops like that out there?
>>
>>Note that I'm not saying ALL cops are like that - just enough that I have
>>a healthy fear of being pulled over by any of them.
>>
>>I'd be interested to see how well traffic court was working in 1806, since
>>you imply that it's been around since then. It's really odd, since the
>>automobile wouldn't come into use until around 90 years later.
>
>
> There were no automobiles back then, nate. They didn't arrive until the
> early 1900's. Our courts, however, have been in existence as long as our
> nation has.
>

Yes, but TRAFFIC court, which isn't a real court at all, hasn't been
around nearly as long. Nor does it dispense justice particularly well,
although it does a fine job of raking in fine dollars. And yes, there
were automobiles in private hands as early as the 1890s.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

jaybird wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>jaybird wrote:
>>
>>>"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>jaybird wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Dave Head" > wrote in message
om...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 19:31:59 -0600, "jaybird" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Dave Head" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>newsgcgr2pj0pto9s7b86l3iqbddq80oje1i0@4ax .com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:09:43 -0600, "jaybird" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>jaybird wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"Brent P" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>news:Q_mdnUMXObmfUSrYnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@c omcast.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>What we have always known was SOP is now becoming codified:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1566.asp
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"The legislation, HB 203, also requires that municipalities using
>>>>>>>>>>>>photo
>>>>>>>>>>>>ticketing capture the face of the driver. Once a ticket is issued
>>>>>>>>>>>>to an
>>>>>>>>>>>>accused driver, that motorist will be compelled to appear in
>>>>>>>>>>>>court if
>>>>>>>>>>>>he
>>>>>>>>>>>>fails or refuses to pay the ticket -- although no arrest warrant
>>>>>>>>>>>>may be
>>>>>>>>>>>>issued. If a challenge is filed in court, motorists will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>presumed
>>>>>>>>>>>>guilty as "administrative procedures" will be used for hearings
>>>>>>>>>>>>where a
>>>>>>>>>>>>"preponderance of evidence" rather than "beyond a reasonable
>>>>>>>>>>>>doubt"
>>>>>>>>>>>>serves as the standard of judgment."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Come on now, Brent. You've been around us long enough to know
>>>>>>>>>>>some of
>>>>>>>>>>>the major differences between criminal and civil law.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Yup, civil is an easy way to get around some of those pesky due
>>>>>>>>>>process
>>>>>>>>>>requirements.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Due process as it applies to putting someone in jail? Not the same
>>>>>>>>>thing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Due process as in punishing people, whether that punishment is jail
>>>>>>>>or
>>>>>>>>screwing
>>>>>>>>with their finances or anything else that messes up their lives.
>>>>>>>>More and
>>>>>>>>more, governments are finding it convenient to do just that - fine
>>>>>>>>you
>>>>>>>>thru the
>>>>>>>>mail because your _car_ was seen somewhere going this fast or not
>>>>>>>>stopping
>>>>>>>>for
>>>>>>>>a traffic light (even tho you were just getting out of the way of the
>>>>>>>>fire
>>>>>>>>engine that needed to get thru), etc. You get a ticket in the mail,
>>>>>>>>or
>>>>>>>>worse,
>>>>>>>>don't get a ticket in the mail, and get your license suspended for
>>>>>>>>non-response, etc. And... its all about the Benjamins. That's what
>>>>>>>>it is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And we don't want to hear anything about going to court and fighting
>>>>>>>>it,
>>>>>>>>either, because doing that is, in itself, screwing with one's
>>>>>>>>financial
>>>>>>>>situation, and life situation, while taking off work, and is in
>>>>>>>>itself
>>>>>>>>punishment inflicted because the cameras got it wrong. The cameras
>>>>>>>>must
>>>>>>>>not be
>>>>>>>>allowed to get it wrong - the cameras must go - this stuff needs to
>>>>>>>>be
>>>>>>>>enforced
>>>>>>>>by _people_, not a bunch of damn, dumb, error-prone cameras.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If a citation is issued in error, you can contest it in court.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I just can't be civil now with a response like that. BLITHERING
>>>>>>IDIOT - I JUST
>>>>>>SAID that doing that is a form of punishment in itself - the sacrifice
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>vacation time from work cannot be regained....... blah.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I know exactly what you said. I don't have any problem with it, and I
>>>>>haven't heard of any problems related to me by friends, family, friends
>>>>>of friends, neighbors, relatives, dogs, cats... Nothing is perfect, but
>>>>>I don't speed or run red lights so it's not an issue for me. If I ever
>>>>>do so by mistake, I'll take responsibility for my actions and pay my
>>>>>ticket.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How about if you are issued a ticket you don't deserve?
>>>
>>>
>>>Then I'll plea not guilty, get a court date, and come prepared to defend
>>>myself. If I can't do so comfortably, then I'll hire an attorney to
>>>represent me.
>>>
>>
>>And isn't that just as much of a penalty as paying the ticket itself?
>>Either way, you lose.
>
>
> Not at all. In our nation a person has every right to defend themselves in
> court. You should feel privileged that you can here rather than having no
> recourse as in many other countries.
>

Fat lot of good it does me, however. Generally in a traffic court, a
"preponderance of evidence" is all that is required meaning that if the
cop shows up I have no chance of defending myself since there's no jury
and it's essentially my word against a police officer. That's a real
fair system there, that is. If traffic court were a real court "beyond
a reasonable doubt" would be the standard used and there would be an
actual jury of my peers hearing the case.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

jaybird wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>jaybird wrote:
>>
>>>"Brent P" > wrote in message
om...
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Nothing is perfect, but I
>>>>>don't speed or run red lights so it's not an issue for me. If I ever do
>>>>>so
>>>>>by mistake, I'll take responsibility for my actions and pay my ticket.
>>>>
>>>>You admitted to speeding in this thread just because you wanted to
>>>>see if someone would pace you.
>>>
>>>
>>>Misunderstanding on your part. Speeding as it applies to my personal
>>>vehicle since police vehicles are exempt from speed restrictions in this
>>>state.
>>>
>>
>>When responding to an emergency.
>
>
> Not in Texas.
>

Everywhere. Unless you want us all to think you're a hypocritical
asshole. Of course, most of us already do, so you're not going to
change a lot of minds.

Now why is it safe for *you* to speed without any lights or sirens, but
when *I* do it it's unsafe?

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

jaybird wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>jaybird wrote:
>>
>>>"necromancer" > wrote in
>>>message th.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), jaybird said in
>>>>rec.autos.driving:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I don't recall ever arresting anyone for speech violations, but I have
>>>>>written tickets before for disorderly conduct for both language and
>>>>>gestures.
>>>>
>>>>Why not take them to jail if they are doing something so terrible? Why
>>>>do you just give them an invoice (which you call a ticket)?
>>>
>>>
>>>Because the citation was enough to have them cease their breach of the
>>>peace.
>>>
>>
>>Do tickets stop people from speeding?
>
>
> I sure hope so.
>

Well, you're wrong, they don't do squat, unless you are going to argue
that there just aren't enough cops out there. You'd need about one cop
for every driver on the road if you'd expect to get any kind of
compliance around here. I don't think anyone actually expects drivers
to obey the speed limit, it's just a handy excuse for police to pull
over anyone they think is suspicious.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

In article > , Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article >,
> Brent P > wrote:
>>In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>
>>> Alrighty. Political views and speech are not violations of law, but not
>>> mentioning your funding source apparently is.
>>
>>Until S1 becomes law.
>
> Which part of S1 were you referring to?

The part where anyone (paid) who's political views reach more than 500
people has to register as a lobbiest. Some interpetations have it
applying to regular people, but to me one has to be paid to do it for it
to be applicable. I find the two equally offensive actually, because it
could function to silence political talk over the airwaves, internet, and
print media since a lot of people are paid to cover that and have
opinions.

Section is 220 as I recall.

Feel free to give your reading of it. I find it to be a convoluted
language that will probably be sorted out in the courts with the first
person with deep enough pockets to make a stand.

In article >,
Brent P > wrote:
>>
>> Which part of S1 were you referring to?
>
>The part where anyone (paid) who's political views reach more than 500
>people has to register as a lobbiest. Some interpetations have it
>applying to regular people, but to me one has to be paid to do it for it
>to be applicable. I find the two equally offensive actually, because it
>could function to silence political talk over the airwaves, internet, and
>print media since a lot of people are paid to cover that and have
>opinions.

It appears this section did not make it into the bill as passed by the
Senate. I agree with your interpretation; it would have only applied
to people paid to spread political views. It's aimed at astroturfing,
but of course the devil is in the interpretation. For instance
because the EFF sent me a T-shirt, any political remarks I made on
Usenet could be considered (by an unreasonable stretch by a
deliberately abusive prosecutor) to be paid lobbying.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.