the slope be slippery.

On Dec 9, 11:48*pm, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
> wrote:
> "Brent" > wrote
>
>Remember when us kooks said that more
> > abuses would follow from these small ones? Seems Indianapolis had to
> > prove it correct.
>
> Nothing was *proven* correct until you post a syndicated news link, rather
> than a blog. Just because it's on the Internet doesn't automatically make it
> true.

1000 syndicated news links do not necessarily constitute "proof".
They may all be derived of a single mistaken source.

It is easy to tell a nitwit by their improper use of the term "proof".

> If a person is going to fight
> a legitimately issued ticket, hoping the police won't show up to testify and
> all that stuff, sure... go ahead and charge them the maximum adminstrative
> costs possible. It's even quoted in the article...
>
> "I know it is done for the purpose of discouraging baseless challenges to
> tickets and clogging the docket..."
>
> It just means that if someone is going to challenge the ticket, they had
> better be absolutely right about their challenge. If there's any doubt they
> might lose the challenge? Pay the ticket.

No. It means only that a defendant is subject to the maximum fine in
court, similar to any criminal charge.

Death at trial vs. Life for a plea of guilty. Same thing, only
different.

> >http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2985.asp
> > "Indiana: City Threatens $2500 Fines for Challenging Traffic Tickets"
>
> Doesn't even have an attribution to an author, therefore even less credible
> without a syndicated news source.

Nitwit k00k conspiracy enthusiasts have no interest in facts, only
information that supports what they already believe, no matter how
incredible or illusory.

This is, after all, a mere accusation, but k00ks render swift and sure
judgment based on nothing else, with indescribable unintended irony.

"But (Glenn Lawrence, administrator for Marion County's superior
courts), pointing to a state statute that says the fine for a traffic
ticket can be up to $500, said that it would be unfair for people not
to be told that upfront.

"The statutory range is set," (Lawrence said. "(Defendants) have to be
advised of that."

- Any lawyer worth their money is going to tell their client that they
are subject to greater penalty at trial.

"(Moron attorney) Ogden says the extra fines are penalties faced by
defendants who are simply seeking their right to a fair trial, and
that extra fines are not imposed on those who do not contest their
tickets.

"People have their right to have their day in court without being
punished because of it," <Ogden> said."

- Which, of course, they do, if found to be not guilty.

"At least one legal expert, however, said Young's practice of
informing defendants of possible fines does not violate the law.

"That, in and of itself, is not unethical, in my opinion," said Henry
Karlson, emeritus professor of law at the Indiana University School of
Law-Indianapolis.

"He's merely telling you that this is the risk you are taking by
pleading not guilty, and he is informing you of your rights."
http://www.indystar.com/article/2009...court-to-court
http://tinyurl.com/ycdxmyh

"The court has never fined anyone $500 and only one person has been
fined $400."
http://www.fox59.com/news/crime/wxin...,4273873.story
http://tinyurl.com/ycy3eob
-----

- gpsman

On 2009-12-10, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
> "Brent" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Remember when it was just "kooks" like me that complained about 'court
>> costs', 'admistrative courts', and other ways that 'streamlined' the
>> process and violated our rights? Remember when us kooks said that more
>> abuses would follow from these small ones? Seems Indianapolis had to
>> prove it correct.
>>
> Nothing was *proven* correct until you post a syndicated news link, rather
> than a blog. Just because it's on the Internet doesn't automatically make it
> true.

Considering how much the mainstream media doesn't bother doing simple
checks and/or prints outright falsehoods there's no reason to believe
them either. But since your google finger is broken I'll second source
it for you:
http://www.indystar.com/article/2009...court-to-court

> I also find nothing in the US Constitution guaranteeing that a trial should
> be zero-cost whatsoever.

HA! You haven't been to IL. It is typical now for traffic courts run by
the counties and even towns/cities to impose "court costs" on those who
fight and lose. These costs are typically $25-30, a significant increase
compared to the fine as most tickets are $25-$79. Also some judges have
a habbit of kicking up the tickets to the $100 max. Go in to fight a $79
ticket, lose, pay $130. yes, it happened to me personally.

>> Following the success of things like cook county IL's 'court costs' as
>> penalty for fighting a ticket combined with judges uping fines to the
>> state max and having red light cameras operated by private companies to
>> ticket motorists, Indianapolis has decided to privatize it's courts and
>> create great risk to fighting a ticket. Fight a ticket and risk a $2500
>> fine is going to make most choose not to fight given the basic
>> unfairness that is traffic court.

> Even if true, I don't see a problem with that. If a person is going to fight
> a legitimately issued ticket, hoping the police won't show up to testify and
> all that stuff, sure... go ahead and charge them the maximum adminstrative
> costs possible. It's even quoted in the article...

I suppose those who believe in an all powerful state and think that
traffic and parking ticket courts are fair might not have a problem with
it.

> "I know it is done for the purpose of discouraging baseless challenges to
> tickets and clogging the docket..."

> It just means that if someone is going to challenge the ticket, they had
> better be absolutely right about their challenge. If there's any doubt they
> might lose the challenge? Pay the ticket.

Exactly how are you supposed to be "absolutely right" in adminstrative
or traffic court? As I've posted before, I was keeping a car for someone
in my driveway. I made sure doing so violated no city or state laws. The
car was ticketed with three tickets and a tow notice was put on it.
Inoperable, adbandoned, no city sticker. The law wrote that inoperable
meant missing major components like wheels, engine, trans, etc. The car
was fully operational. I started it and moved it on my property every
week or two. The law stated that adbandoned only applied to vehicles
parked on the street, not on private property. The law clearly stated
that a village sticker is needed when operated on the public roads. The
vehicle was not used on the road, it didn't leave my property.
Attempting to show the "judge" 'the law' (yes, I was there with the
owner of the vehicle) got a response of 'I know the law!'. The car was
kept reasonable clean, the tires inflated, fully operational, and with
photos in court to show it. He threw out one of the three tickets and
the other two were doubled with court costs. How absolutely right does
one need to be to fight a ticket in your mind? Was that situatuon
absolutely right enough? Traffic and adminstrative court are rigged and
unfair systems to start with. It doesn't matter if you're right with
regard to winning.

>> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2985.asp
>> "Indiana: City Threatens $2500 Fines for Challenging Traffic Tickets"

> Doesn't even have an attribution to an author, therefore even less credible
> without a syndicated news source.

I'm sorry your google finger is broken. thenewspaper.com has never
failed to get the basic facts wrong IME, once again this it doesn't if
you believe the mainstream media:

http://www.indystar.com/article/2009...court-to-court

"The lawsuit also cites a city of Indianapolis-issued news release about
a new parking citation court that states the court can request a fine of
up to $2,500 if citations are not paid before their scheduling hearing
-- a policy that Ogden said also violates the state and U.S.
constitutions."

On 2009-12-09, Dave C. > wrote:

> Bottom line, if you are truly innocent, you are going to get ****ed
> worse than if you are guilty. Let's see what would happen if we applied
> the same solution to a criminal trial, trying to discourage people
> from fighting the charges, regardless of actual guilt or actual
> innocence. An innocent man is accused of rape (for example). If he
> pleads guilty, he gets 5 years. If he pleads innocent, he gets 30 years
> with no possibility of parole. (and note I did say the accused was
> actually innocent) It's the same exact situation. The only reason it's
> not unconstitutional in traffic court is...it's not a criminal trial.
> -Dave

This happens every day in criminal court too. Many innocent people have
plea bargined.

On Dec 9, 11:48*pm, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
> wrote:
> "Brent" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Remember when it was just "kooks" like me that complained about 'court
> > costs', 'admistrative courts', and other ways that 'streamlined' the
> > process and violated our rights? Remember when us kooks said that more
> > abuses would follow from these small ones? Seems Indianapolis had to
> > prove it correct.
>
> Nothing was *proven* correct until you post a syndicated news link, rather
> than a blog. Just because it's on the Internet doesn't automatically make it
> true.
>
> I also find nothing in the US Constitution guaranteeing that a trial should
> be zero-cost whatsoever.
>
> > Following the success of things like cook county IL's 'court costs' as
> > penalty for fighting a ticket combined with judges uping fines to the
> > state max and having red light cameras operated by private companies to
> > ticket motorists, Indianapolis has decided to privatize it's courts and
> > create great risk to fighting a ticket. Fight a ticket and risk a $2500
> > fine is going to make most choose not to fight given the basic
> > unfairness that is traffic court.
>
> Even if true, I don't see a problem with that. If a person is going to fight
> a legitimately issued ticket, hoping the police won't show up to testify and
> all that stuff, sure... go ahead and charge them the maximum adminstrative
> costs possible. It's even quoted in the article...
>
> "I know it is done for the purpose of discouraging baseless challenges to
> tickets and clogging the docket..."
>
> It just means that if someone is going to challenge the ticket, they had
> better be absolutely right about their challenge. If there's any doubt they
> might lose the challenge? Pay the ticket.
>
> >http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2985.asp
> > "Indiana: City Threatens $2500 Fines for Challenging Traffic Tickets"
>
> Doesn't even have an attribution to an author, therefore even less credible
> without a syndicated news source.

It is a practical (actual) obstacle to exercising one's RIGHT to due
process.


Dave

On Dec 9, 8:48*pm, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." >
wrote:
> "Brent" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Remember when it was just "kooks" like me that complained about 'court
> > costs', 'admistrative courts', and other ways that 'streamlined' the
> > process and violated our rights? Remember when us kooks said that more
> > abuses would follow from these small ones? Seems Indianapolis had to
> > prove it correct.
>
> Nothing was *proven* correct until you post a syndicated news link, rather
> than a blog. Just because it's on the Internet doesn't automatically make it
> true.
>
> I also find nothing in the US Constitution guaranteeing that a trial should
> be zero-cost whatsoever.
>
> > Following the success of things like cook county IL's 'court costs' as
> > penalty for fighting a ticket combined with judges uping fines to the
> > state max and having red light cameras operated by private companies to
> > ticket motorists, Indianapolis has decided to privatize it's courts and
> > create great risk to fighting a ticket. Fight a ticket and risk a $2500
> > fine is going to make most choose not to fight given the basic
> > unfairness that is traffic court.
>
> Even if true, I don't see a problem with that. If a person is going to fight
> a legitimately issued ticket, hoping the police won't show up to testify and
> all that stuff, sure... go ahead and charge them the maximum adminstrative
> costs possible. It's even quoted in the article...
>
> "I know it is done for the purpose of discouraging baseless challenges to
> tickets and clogging the docket..."
>
> It just means that if someone is going to challenge the ticket, they had
> better be absolutely right about their challenge. If there's any doubt they
> might lose the challenge? Pay the ticket.
>
> >http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2985.asp
> > "Indiana: City Threatens $2500 Fines for Challenging Traffic Tickets"
>
> Doesn't even have an attribution to an author, therefore even less credible
> without a syndicated news source.

I also don't see how dthey can call 'court costs' a 'fine'. If it is
actually listed as a 'fine' in the regulation, it won't sand a hope in
hell of surviving the first challenge. You cannot fine someone for
using his civil rights.

Harry K

On 2009-12-10, Harry K > wrote:
> On Dec 9, 8:48*pm, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." >
> wrote:
>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > Remember when it was just "kooks" like me that complained about 'court
>> > costs', 'admistrative courts', and other ways that 'streamlined' the
>> > process and violated our rights? Remember when us kooks said that more
>> > abuses would follow from these small ones? Seems Indianapolis had to
>> > prove it correct.
>>
>> Nothing was *proven* correct until you post a syndicated news link, rather
>> than a blog. Just because it's on the Internet doesn't automatically make it
>> true.
>>
>> I also find nothing in the US Constitution guaranteeing that a trial should
>> be zero-cost whatsoever.
>>
>> > Following the success of things like cook county IL's 'court costs' as
>> > penalty for fighting a ticket combined with judges uping fines to the
>> > state max and having red light cameras operated by private companies to
>> > ticket motorists, Indianapolis has decided to privatize it's courts and
>> > create great risk to fighting a ticket. Fight a ticket and risk a $2500
>> > fine is going to make most choose not to fight given the basic
>> > unfairness that is traffic court.
>>
>> Even if true, I don't see a problem with that. If a person is going to fight
>> a legitimately issued ticket, hoping the police won't show up to testify and
>> all that stuff, sure... go ahead and charge them the maximum adminstrative
>> costs possible. It's even quoted in the article...
>>
>> "I know it is done for the purpose of discouraging baseless challenges to
>> tickets and clogging the docket..."
>>
>> It just means that if someone is going to challenge the ticket, they had
>> better be absolutely right about their challenge. If there's any doubt they
>> might lose the challenge? Pay the ticket.
>>
>> >http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2985.asp
>> > "Indiana: City Threatens $2500 Fines for Challenging Traffic Tickets"
>>
>> Doesn't even have an attribution to an author, therefore even less credible
>> without a syndicated news source.
>
> I also don't see how dthey can call 'court costs' a 'fine'. If it is
> actually listed as a 'fine' in the regulation, it won't sand a hope in
> hell of surviving the first challenge. You cannot fine someone for
> using his civil rights.

That's because in indy's case it is a fine. There are the usual fines
that are set by the courts, that's what you pay when you just plead
guilty by mail. Then there are the maximum allowed fines. What is
happening in Indy apparently is that judges are punishing those who
fight tickets with the maximum allowed under the law.

Also, the court costs are essentially a fine but with only a semantic
difference anyway.

The whole point of the system is to make the money collection as swift
as the cop reaching into someone's wallet and extracting the cash.
Punishment for fighting tickets works great for keeping the volume of
people showing up in court down.

I imagine that as this trend progresses there will be electronic
withdrawl of fines from a person's bank account before the cop allows
them to go on their way. A further progression will use the tax-by-mile
system to automatically determine a speeding violation has taken place
and extract the fine electronically. There will be some complex method
of appeal that will cost several times the automatic fine.

SFB spewed:

>
>Simple. Obey the law. Parking violators are not so bad but most americans
>are sick of you speeders and red light runners endangering the rest of
>us. $2500 fine for deadly psychos like you is too little. You deserve
>prison.

And just how much did *you* pay and/or serve when *you* were busted in
that schoolzone, you stupid ****ing american (sic)?

--

Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS (a.k.a. SFB) admits to being
a deadly speeder, psychopath and criminal coddler:

"> Have you ever driven a car faster than the legal speed limit?

Yes, but never deliberately. In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5
years ago for doing 41 in a 25. I just about kicked the cops teeth in
cause i was sure he was lying. No way the SL on this wide open
stretch could be 25, i thought."

Pride of America (c.k.a. Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE/Speeders And Drunk Drivers
Are Murderers (SADDAM)), 10/3/2002
Message-ID: >
http://tinyurl.com/5u4wg

Proof that POA is LBMHB/lbVH/SADDAM:
See the following: http://tinyurl.com/ahphj

Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> "Brent" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Remember when it was just "kooks" like me that complained about 'court
>> costs', 'admistrative courts', and other ways that 'streamlined' the
>> process and violated our rights? Remember when us kooks said that more
>> abuses would follow from these small ones? Seems Indianapolis had to
>> prove it correct.
>>
> Nothing was *proven* correct until you post a syndicated news link,
> rather than a blog. Just because it's on the Internet doesn't
> automatically make it true.
>
> I also find nothing in the US Constitution guaranteeing that a trial
> should be zero-cost whatsoever.
>
>> Following the success of things like cook county IL's 'court costs' as
>> penalty for fighting a ticket combined with judges uping fines to the
>> state max and having red light cameras operated by private companies to
>> ticket motorists, Indianapolis has decided to privatize it's courts and
>> create great risk to fighting a ticket. Fight a ticket and risk a $2500
>> fine is going to make most choose not to fight given the basic
>> unfairness that is traffic court.
>>
> Even if true, I don't see a problem with that. If a person is going to
> fight a legitimately issued ticket, hoping the police won't show up to
> testify and all that stuff, sure... go ahead and charge them the maximum
> adminstrative costs possible. It's even quoted in the article...
>
> "I know it is done for the purpose of discouraging baseless challenges
> to tickets and clogging the docket..."
>
> It just means that if someone is going to challenge the ticket, they had
> better be absolutely right about their challenge. If there's any doubt
> they might lose the challenge? Pay the ticket.
>
>> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2985.asp
>> "Indiana: City Threatens $2500 Fines for Challenging Traffic Tickets"
>>
> Doesn't even have an attribution to an author, therefore even less
> credible without a syndicated news source.

And if they're found innocent, should they still pay? Of course not,
that wouldn't be fair - but this is traffic court we're talking about.
The defendant should be compensated for time and lost wages. What are
the odds of that happening?

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Dec 10, 8:56*pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>
> > It just means that if someone is going to challenge the ticket, they had
> > better be absolutely right about their challenge. If there's any doubt
> > they might lose the challenge? Pay the ticket.
>
> And if they're found innocent, should they still pay? *Of course not,
> that wouldn't be fair - but this is traffic court we're talking about.
> The defendant should be compensated for time and lost wages. *What are
> the odds of that happening?

100%, with every verdict of "innocent".
-----

- gpsman

On Dec 10, 7:38*pm, gpsman > wrote:
> On Dec 10, 8:56*pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
> > Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>
> > > It just means that if someone is going to challenge the ticket, they had
> > > better be absolutely right about their challenge. If there's any doubt
> > > they might lose the challenge? Pay the ticket.
>
> > And if they're found innocent, should they still pay? *Of course not,
> > that wouldn't be fair - but this is traffic court we're talking about.
> > The defendant should be compensated for time and lost wages. *What are
> > the odds of that happening?
>
> 100%, with every verdict of "innocent".
> *-----
>
> - gpsman

??? compensated for time and wages? In what dream land do you live?
Not pay any fines - yes. Compensation - not a chance. They should be
it it ain't agonna happen.
Harry K