fight your traffic tickets, you're clogging up the system but thats okay.

[Alvito]

Hey guys, recently a lot of you have been PMing me asking me how to file for disclosure and stuff like that. So instead of replying to each PM, I'm just going to post everything I know in here.

Section 1: I got a Traffic ticket, what now?

First off, it doesn't matter what the traffic ticket was for, fight it. In some cases the cop may not show up, and then the prosecution will have to drop the charges. But don't bet on this to be the case, you have to be prepared as well.

So you've got the ticket and you're bummed out. What should you do? Go to the court house on the back of the ticket, and file for a court date to challenge the police officer's evidence. You will receive a letter in the mail in a few months telling you when your court date is.

Next step is to file for disclosure.

Disclosure is what the officer wrote down when he pulled you over. Which street, which lane you were in, a short description of what happened (speeding, illegal turn... etc) and details about your car. Why is disclosure important to you? Simply, if you are to prepare any sort of credible defense, you will need to know what evidence they have against you in order to try and refute or disprove it.

For example, lets say I received disclosure, and the officer wrote down I was driving a purple car. On my registration it says my car is red. When the officer swears in at the trial and says purple car, speeding... blah blah blah... when it is my turn to cross examine him, I will ask "What colour was the car again?" He'll say "purple", I'll ask one more time, "You are sure it is purple?" and he will respond "yes", then I whip out my registration, and the justice will see the word "RED" and think the cop isnt a credible witness anymore. I do not know if that is enough to raise enough doubt, but purple and red are two totally different colours, if it was light blue and dark blue, then maybe. But red and purple, the justice should throw it out.

So you can see how it is important to know what the officer is going to say before he says it. That is why you need disclosure.

Here is what you need to do:

Model your letter after this... http://www.magma.ca/~fyst/disclose.htm

Mail this letter to the prosecutors office and the court house. The court house address can be found on the back of the ticket and the trial notice letter they send you. For the prosecutors office, you will have to call the number on the back of the ticket, and ask a representative, make sure to take down their name so you can say that in court if your letter doesn't reach its destination. Also send more than one letter, this will look great on your part if you dont receive it, but have proof that you sent it numerous times. I sent mine out twice and got no response, at the initial trial the justice did ask me how many times I sent it, and I said twice, 2 months before the trial date, and one month before when there was no response.

DO NOT PUT YOUR PHONE NUMBER DOWN. Here's why: When they have your disclosure ready for you, they call you and tell you to pick it up. That's them just trying to inconvenience you. So don't put your number down. At my initial trial, the prosecutor thought he was a big shot, saying I didn't put my phone number down there, as thats how they notify me to come pick it up. Well, I quickly replied by saying that I had my mailing address there, and if he was lacking information he could have mailed me a letter asking for my phone number, so he could call me to tell me to come get my package. Sounds ridiculous I know.

Because I did not put my phone number down, I did not get my disclosure, the justice agreed that I am entitled to my disclosure, especially after having the decency to make the request twice. (see how your persistence will only help your cause?) So anyway, the date got pushed back a month and 2 weeks, thus pushing it well over a year since the offence date. Why is this a good thing? Keep on reading!


Charter of Rights and freedoms section 11 subsection B.

Don't be afraid. Making use of the charter of rights and freedoms makes Trudeau happy. This section states that we have the right to a fair and speedy trial. Speedy.... ironic I know, but it just means our trial date isn't too far away from the offence date. But don't get confused, if you purposely postpone your court date, you will not be allowed to use this argument, it has to be done through no fault of your own.

Fill out this form: http://www.magma.ca/~fyst/question.htm

And mail it to the two attorney general's listed below, and again to the court house and prosecutor's office.

Make sure you do this at least 15 days before the trial date. I suggest mailing it 1 month before. It looks better =).

Send it through registered mail if you wish, and if you havent received disclosure, now would be a good time to send an additional request. Canada post charges 6.95 for registered mail, sending both letters in one go saves you some money .

Okay, so you've sent all your letters and the trial date is here.

There are a few scenarios that may happen.

1. cop doesn't show up.
2. you didn't get disclosure, when the justice asks, are you ready to proceed, say no, i have not been given disclosure despite making several attempts to get it.

Now, the prosecution will try to pressure you into going ahead with the trial, DO NOT! Say you want to have your disclosure first, so you can take a look at it and be prepare. THIS IS YOUR RIGHT! The justice will agree with you if you made several attempts to get it well before the trial date.

3. you get your disclosure and find something that might help in your defence and you have prepared cross examination questions and you feel confident.
4. the trial date is over a year from the offence date and you will make the case that this infringes your right to a speedy trial (11b).
5. you were not given disclosure, they give you disclosure at the trial, and postpone the trial to another day so that you may have some time to look it over and prepare yourself. You want to have no say in this so that you can say you had no part in delaying the process.

So the 2nd court date arrives, its well over a year now, you sent your constitutional question to the proper places AGAIN (because this is a new trial date now) and you use 11b as an argument.

These are all the positive outcomes of this. Of course there is a chance, disclosure doesnt help you, or your trial date is 6 months away from the offence date, if thats the case, and the charge is serious, I would go seek help from a lawyer. If not, I would just try to bargain with the prosecution and see if they will reduce the charge.

But to me the whole point of this is to beat the ticket completely. You don't want that on your record, you want to keep your insurance premiums down. And by keeping this ticket in the court system for however many months, thats how many months it doesn't count against your insurance, because technically you haven't been found guilty yet.

So, everyone fight your tickets, big or small!

p.s. if there are any typos or mistakes, please pm me so i can fix it, hopefully we can get a sticky on this as there is some good information that a lot of people have been asking me about recently.

And if there are any "you did the crime u do the time" people posting in here, I respect your opinion, but we don't need it in here, and I will ask the moderators to remove it.

thanks.



Source:

http://www.magma.ca/~fyst/

and

My own personal experience

[selpats]

Repost! http://i.pbase.com/o4/42/267742/1/55553263.58.gif

There already is a discussion about this going on in another thread...

[Alvito]

Repost! http://i.pbase.com/o4/42/267742/1/55553263.58.gif

There already is a discussion about this going on in another thread...

Oh which one? I did a search and didn't see any topics with a similar title.

[ES_Revenge]

LOL. :lol: IBTL ;)

[Menace]

A good thread :D

I still enjoy this snowy weekend. IBLy :D :twisted: :evil:

[Alvito]

why would this get locked?

it is a legitimate opinion of selpats.

[iluvmikeharris]

Don't fight your tickets, you waste time. you were caught, pay your monies to the government who needs it for stuff.

It sure wasn't a waste of my time - I avoided an insurance surcharge for years to come, and of course paying the ticket.

Even a parking ticket is worth paying in Toronto, as it could take years to reach trial and they removed the incentive to pay by eliminating the voluntary reduced fine payment.

[h2o-]

Don't fight your tickets, you waste time. you were caught, pay your monies to the government who needs it for stuff.

Sorry Alvito but I would be going to fight!

[Alvito]

It sure wasn't a waste of my time - I avoided an insurance surcharge for years to come, and of course paying the ticket.

Even a parking ticket is worth paying in Toronto, as it could take years to reach trial and they removed the incentive to pay by eliminating the voluntary reduced fine payment.

I agree.


Sorry Alvito but I would be going to fight!

Good! Fight it!

This thread was created for selpats

[iluvmikeharris]

I agree.



Good! Fight it!

This thread was created for selpats

I just realized that - found your thread that he got locked up :D

[iluvmikeharris]

Great way to tie up our court system and cost us all more in the end.

How about taking responsibility for yourself and pay the tickets that are justified? Then drive more responsibly. Simple really.

Knowing that fighting these tickets upsets ladies like you makes it all the more satisfying :lol:

[Alvito]

Knowing that fighting these tickets upsets ladies like you makes it all the more satisfying :lol:

moderators hate me. I do something good and they let selpats ruin it.

i complained about his actions several times and yet they let him run wild and piss off everyone in there.

[ES_Revenge]

why would this get locked?

it is a legitimate opinion of selpats.

Because any thread started in sarcasm usually gets locked. However it looks like you've changed the whole thing around? :confused:

The other one (the first one) got locked?

[Alvito]

Because any thread started in sarcasm usually gets locked. However it looks like you've changed the whole thing around? :confused:

The other one (the first one) got locked?

the first one got locked.

this thread was made for selpats to voice his opinion. i was tired of him doing it in the wrong thread.

[65505201]

I loved the part where the OP burned selpat when:



The problem is everyone's definition of speeding 'safely'. The 17-year old who killed a kid about two blocks from my house last year said he was speeding safely too...

Yeah, because things like that never happen in your little bubble do they?
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs....11/1003/NEWS02




"There was a 16-year-old driver who had his license for less than a month who came over a sharp rise ... on a dare that he could get air coming across that hill,"


Trying to get airborne and speeding are the same, eh selpat? :lol:

[Alvito]

yeah that was a really extreme case. and a really liberal use of the expression 2 blocks from my house. and really really liberal when the kid told him that he thought he was safely speeding.

[selpats]

Back on topic -

How many people fight tickets because they legitimately feel they were wrongly accused vs how many people fight just for the sake of fighting?

[65505201]

To the other poster, for someone to get air wouldn't that indicate to you that maybe he was speeding? Cars don't just get air, at least not in my experience.

You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between speeding safely and rushing over a hilltop to get air. Did you even read the article? This kid was stunting.



came over a sharp rise ... on a dare that he could get air coming across that hill

[spf1971]

You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between speeding safely and rushing over a hilltop to get air. Did you even read the article? This kid was stunting.

I've seen this said a few times "speeding safely", please define that for me. What exactly is speeding safely? Can you do testing and get a license that says "you're a good driver so you can do 10km over or 50km over"? I'm sure everyone here is an excellent driver and is in total control of their cars at all times. It's not like accidents ever happen. Speed limits are set for a reason. As for saying that cars are getting better, that's fine; it's the drivers I'm worried about. When hover cars ( Alvito brought them up) become reality, you can use them as an arguement to change the speed limit until then, let's deal with reality.

[Ebola]

In my experience Toronto is in it's own little world.

Wheras in my part of Ontario the traffic on the 401 cruises at around 110-115km/h, in TO you need to do around 125-130km/h to keep up.

The speed limit of 100 is fine. Sure, cars handle better, but they still don't handle a 130km/h crash well.

[iluvmikeharris]

moderators hate me. I do something good and they let selpats ruin it.

i complained about his actions several times and yet they let him run wild and piss off everyone in there.

Keep up the good work. Notwithstaning the holier than thou nature of those this thread was dedicated to, there are plenty of us here that appreciate the rights we hold in this country that allow us to hold the Crown up to their duties.

I wouldn't say he ruined it for me, if anything, each outburst that is critical on moral grounds just makes me that much more passionate about my opinion!

[jeeva86]

Does the speedy trial charter of rights apply to parking tickets as well?

[hoob]

In my experience Toronto is in it's own little world.

Wheras in my part of Ontario the traffic on the 401 cruises at around 110-115km/h, in TO you need to do around 125-130km/h to keep up.


Yeah, and down between Waterloo and London it's more like 135-150km/h, on a clear day.

[Alvito]

Does the speedy trial charter of rights apply to parking tickets as well?

ive not had any experience with fighting parking tickets. are they issued by a private company or the city?


I've seen this said a few times "speeding safely", please define that for me. What exactly is speeding safely? Can you do testing and get a license that says "you're a good driver so you can do 10km over or 50km over"? I'm sure everyone here is an excellent driver and is in total control of their cars at all times. It's not like accidents ever happen. Speed limits are set for a reason. As for saying that cars are getting better, that's fine; it's the drivers I'm worried about. When hover cars ( Alvito brought them up) become reality, you can use them as an arguement to change the speed limit until then, let's deal with reality.

If you wish to discuss the definition of speeding safely, make you own thread. This has nothing to do with fighting tickets. And if you think speeding is the end-all of tickets you're wrong. The reality is that speeding tickets are not the only ticket someone can get. Stay on topic or get out and make your own thread there, voice your opinion in there, nobody wants this one to get cluttered with your opinion in here, unless it pertains to the discussion at hand.

[Ryan]

Chill out everybody...

[spf1971]

ive not had any experience with fighting parking tickets. are they issued by a private company or the city?



If you wish to discuss the definition of speeding safely, make you own thread. This has nothing to do with fighting tickets. And if you think speeding is the end-all of tickets you're wrong. The reality is that speeding tickets are not the only ticket someone can get. Stay on topic or get out and make your own thread there, voice your opinion in there, nobody wants this one to get cluttered with your opinion in here, unless it pertains to the discussion at hand.

Why don't you look at your #16 post and tell me that " safely speeding" has nothing to do with this topic. You're the one who brought it up to start with. Explain to me why your opinions are supposed to be so much more relevant and important than anyone elses? I never said speeding was the only ticket but that is what the majority of people on here are talking about; again I reference post #16, your post. If you're so adamant about being the only one who can post and discuss issues, maybe you should start your own blog, then you can make all the rules you want. Until then I'll post my opinion just as anyone else can post their own opinion.

[Nikita]

Back on topic -

How many people fight tickets because they legitimately feel they were wrongly accused vs how many people fight just for the sake of fighting?

Neither. I don't expect you to understand this concept, as you've shown in other similar threads. I fight tickets for the sake of keeping the system honest. We have an adversarial system for a reason, not just because it's the best way to arrive at truth, but also to ensure that the process is followed by both sides, accused's and governement. If we start letting the government win without the required evidentiary and due process rules being followed, it's a slippery slope to obtaining a finding of guilty on less than the requisite proof. It also denegrates the integrity of the system and comes close to the kinds of legal systems in non-democratic countries.

This is not 'clogging up the system', it's ensuring that everyone do their part to make the system work right, fairly and with integrity. If someone on the government side does their job wrong, then challenging the charge in court does clog up the system....but not because of defendants, rather it's because of the other side, the side that didn't do their job right. Could be the cop who didn't do his due diligence (giving them them the benefit of the doubt here by implying mistake as opposed to outright lying, overcharging, w/e), could be the Crown who didn't ensure she/he had a reasonable prospect of conviction yet proceeds anyway, or didn't look at the file till five minutes before trial, could be court services who are responsible for getting defendants their disclosure, could be the trial-coordinator who schedules trial dates beyond the legally accepted time frame...I could go on, but I think my point is clear.

I've said it before and I'll continue to say it. It is not hard for cops, crowns, court services, trial-cordinators, JPs and everyone else in the system to do their job right. We on the other side are expected to do so. Considering it is the government side of the system that has the full resources of the system at their disposal, it's a no brainer that if someone gets off on what you call a technicality, then it's the party who created that technicality/mistake/breach by not doing thier job properly, who is at fault wrt to wasted systemic resources. And the fault of letting dangerous drivers continue to drive lies at those same feet.

[spf1971]

Neither. I don't expect you to understand this concept, as you've shown in other similar threads. I fight tickets for the sake of keeping the system honest. We have an adversarial system for a reason, not just because it's the best way to arrive at truth, but also to ensure that the process is followed by both sides, accused's and governement. If we start letting the government win without the required evidentiary and due process rules being followed, it's a slippery slope to obtaining a finding of guilty on less than the requisite proof. It also denegrates the integrity of the system and comes close to the kinds of legal systems in non-democratic countries.

This is not 'clogging up the system', it's ensuring that everyone do their part to make the system work right, fairly and with integrity. If someone on the government side does their job wrong, then challenging the charge in court does clog up the system....but not because of defendants, rather it's because of the other side, the side that didn't do their job right. Could be the cop who didn't do his due diligence (giving them them the benefit of the doubt here by implying mistake as opposed to outright lying, overcharging, w/e), could be the Crown who didn't ensure she/he had a reasonable prospect of conviction yet proceeds anyway, or didn't look at the file till five minutes before trial, could be court services who are responsible for getting defendants their disclosure, could be the trial-coordinator who schedules trial dates beyond the legally accepted time frame...I could go on, but I think my point is clear.

I've said it before and I'll continue to say it. It is not hard for cops, crowns, court services, trial-cordinators, JPs and everyone else in the system to do their job right. We on the other side are expected to do so. Considering it is the government side of the system that has the full resources of the system at their disposal, it's a no brainer that if someone gets off on what you call a technicality, then it's the party who created that technicality/mistake/breach by not doing thier job properly, who is at fault wrt to wasted systemic resources. And the fault of letting dangerous drivers continue to drive lies at those same feet.

And what if they did everything right? By your logic you would then be clogging up the system; so everyone who fights a ticket with the hope that someone won't show up on trial day or it might take too long to get to court and they would win using the charter of rights without any other legitimate reason is abusing the system. If you feel that you have a legitimate defense then by all means fight your ticket. If you're only hope is that you will win on a technicality, like the 2 examples I listed, how are you not clogging up the system?

[Psubs]

Larger fines are not a deterrent, it's just to create more revenue.

Give people a $50 fine for court, police and processing fees, then tack on hours of community service or for more severe penalties a few days in jail, then that will deter people. Sheesh.

The government doesn't want people to stop speeding. They would lose out on revenue.

If speeding 15 km over was $300 and could only be bargained down to $150 people would stop speeding. Maybe 25 over would be $500, 35 over $1000 and 50 over a $2,000 fine. that would deter everyone but the really rich. Then the government couldn't make money off the lower and middle-class. :evil:

[spf1971]

Neither. I don't expect you to understand this concept, as you've shown in other similar threads. I fight tickets for the sake of keeping the system honest. We have an adversarial system for a reason, not just because it's the best way to arrive at truth, but also to ensure that the process is followed by both sides, accused's and governement. If we start letting the government win without the required evidentiary and due process rules being followed, it's a slippery slope to obtaining a finding of guilty on less than the requisite proof. It also denegrates the integrity of the system and comes close to the kinds of legal systems in non-democratic countries.

This is not 'clogging up the system', it's ensuring that everyone do their part to make the system work right, fairly and with integrity. If someone on the government side does their job wrong, then challenging the charge in court does clog up the system....but not because of defendants, rather it's because of the other side, the side that didn't do their job right. Could be the cop who didn't do his due diligence (giving them them the benefit of the doubt here by implying mistake as opposed to outright lying, overcharging, w/e), could be the Crown who didn't ensure she/he had a reasonable prospect of conviction yet proceeds anyway, or didn't look at the file till five minutes before trial, could be court services who are responsible for getting defendants their disclosure, could be the trial-coordinator who schedules trial dates beyond the legally accepted time frame...I could go on, but I think my point is clear.

I've said it before and I'll continue to say it. It is not hard for cops, crowns, court services, trial-cordinators, JPs and everyone else in the system to do their job right. We on the other side are expected to do so. Considering it is the government side of the system that has the full resources of the system at their disposal, it's a no brainer that if someone gets off on what you call a technicality, then it's the party who created that technicality/mistake/breach by not doing thier job properly, who is at fault wrt to wasted systemic resources. And the fault of letting dangerous drivers continue to drive lies at those same feet.

As a technicality, it doesn't matter it the person made a mistake or did whatever they did on purpose. You are in control of the vehicle, or you're supposed to be at least. You should know how fast you're going, whether you can turn or not, whether you can park or not etc. The fact that you accidentally sped, made an illegal turn or whatever is no ones fault but your own. You said if a technicality occurs and a person gets off on a ticket it's the courts own fault, it should then goes to say if you commit an offense, even if it's only through a technicality and not on purpose, it's your own fault. It's the police's job to enforce the laws, not interpret then. If you speed ( and I'm only using speed as an example here) why should you get the benefit of the doubt. You were driving the car, you went faster then you should it's just as likely that you meant to do the speed you were doing as it is that you accidentally went too fast.

Like I said, if you have a legitmate reason then you should fight the ticket. a lot of people on here do not have legitimate reasons though.

[spf1971]

Larger fines are not a deterrent, it's just to create more revenue.

Give people a $50 fine for court, police and processing fees, then tack on hours of community service or for more severe penalties a few days in jail, then that will deter people. Sheesh.

The government doesn't want people to stop speeding. They would lose out on revenue.

If speeding 15 km over was $300 and could only be bargained down to $150 people would stop speeding. Maybe 25 over would be $500, 35 over $1000 and 50 over a $2,000 fine. that would deter everyone but the really rich. Then the government couldn't make money off the lower and middle-class. :evil:

I think larger fines are a deterent. Maybe we should do it like they do in some European countries and tie the fine to the persons income.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1759791.stm

[Nikita]

And what if they did everything right? By your logic you would then be clogging up the system; so everyone who fights a ticket with the hope that someone won't show up on trial day or it might take too long to get to court and they would win using the charter of rights without any other legitimate reason is abusing the system. If you feel that you have a legitimate defense then by all means fight your ticket. If you're only hope is that you will win on a technicality, like the 2 examples I listed, how are you not clogging up the system?

Uggh, that's my point, if they did everything right, there would be much fewer instances where people had a defense to go to trial with. And if they did go to court and the process was completed properly and they have no defense, then they would be found guilty. And that would be a legitmate finding of guilt.

Anyway, it's obvious to me that most of what I said is beyond your understanding. It's somewhat philisophical, so perhaps over your head. And you are, like everyone else, avoiding my main point: What is so damned hard about expecting the system to do the job right? If everyone did what they are supposed to do then the sytems WORKS.

[spf1971]

Uggh, that's my point, if they did everything right, there would be much fewer instances where people had a defense to go to trial with. And if they did go to court and the process was completed properly and they have no defense, then they would be found guilty. And that would be a legitmate finding of guilt.

Anyway, it's obvious to me that most of what I said is beyond your understanding. It's somewhat philisophical, so perhaps over your head. And you are, like everyone else, avoiding my main point: What is so damned hard about expecting the system to do the job right? If everyone did what they are supposed to do then the sytems WORKS.

No actually it wouldn't because you would still have the same number of people hoping that the cop wouldn't show up or that the trial would be delayed so long they could win on a charter defense. How did you counter my arguement? You didn't. You just said the same things a second time. The problem is, and I'll say this slowly because your philosophical highly advanced brain is unable to comprehend simple sentences; People tie up the system with BS reasons such as MAYBE THE COP WON'T SHOW UP. It doesn't matter how well everyone else does their job, these same people will continue to try these same actions. Do you understand now? Or do you need me to dumb it down more for you?

[iluvmikeharris]

No actually it wouldn't because you would still have the same number of people hoping that the cop wouldn't show up or that the trial would be delayed so long they could win on a charter defense. How did you counter my arguement? You didn't. You just said the same things a second time. The problem is, and I'll say this slowly because your philosophical highly advanced brain is unable to comprehend simple sentences; People tie up the system with BS reasons such as MAYBE THE COP WON'T SHOW UP. It doesn't matter how well everyone else does their job, these same people will continue to try these same actions. Do you understand now? Or do you need me to dumb it down more for you?

BS reasons?? These are basic requirements they must meet. Every time a cop writes a ticket, he should have a reasonable expectation he'll have to take the witness stand. Every time someone disputes a ticket, they need to take reasonable steps to ensure they bring the issue to trial in a reasonable amount of time. And as the defendant, you're damn right I'm going to hope they slip up!

How about the people that don't get caught - that would be almost everyone on a 400 series highway. Should they "do the right thing" and turn themselves in for speeding if they're not pulled over? The only difference between them and the ones going to court is who got caught.

[Paolo]

No actually it wouldn't because you would still have the same number of people hoping that the cop wouldn't show up or that the trial would be delayed so long they could win on a charter defense. How did you counter my arguement? You didn't. You just said the same things a second time. The problem is, and I'll say this slowly because your philosophical highly advanced brain is unable to comprehend simple sentences; People tie up the system with BS reasons such as MAYBE THE COP WON'T SHOW UP. It doesn't matter how well everyone else does their job, these same people will continue to try these same actions. Do you understand now? Or do you need me to dumb it down more for you?

Shes a little slow to comprehend.. dont worry, its not your fault.. But I totally understand your point of view and it seems to be correct.

[65505201]

Or do you need me to dumb it down more for you?

This coming from a Newfie :lol: (couldn't resist)

Once again, the majority (note: majority, not all) of people have a "legitimate reason" for speeding - it's set too bloody low. The ones that dispute their tickets are of the opinion that the government will never give up such a lucrative source of revenue, so we fight with the tools we are given - clogging up the system to deny the profits the government is trying to realize.

To answer your question about "safe speeding," it is the expectation that there is minimally increased risk from exceeding the limit. Yes, if something happens, you're more likely to get into an accident. Say it's something as drastic as a 100% increase in risk. It's not much of a difference if there's a .1% risk to begin with. .1% to .2% ooooooooo.

I don't know how many years you've spent on the road, but what's legal and what's safe aren't necessarily the same all the time. There's a little something called discretion that you develop as the years go by. 85+% of people on the 400 series highways can't be wrong ;)

To give you an example, I was pulled over on an interstate highway doing 65mph in a 55mph zone at 4am....with nearly no other cars on the road. I'm sure I was real dangerous there :rolleyes: If I was given a ticket instead of a warning, I can tell you now that I would've fought it.

[spf1971]

This coming from a Newfie :lol: (couldn't resist)

Once again, the majority (note: majority, not all) of people have a "legitimate reason" for speeding - it's set too bloody low. The ones that dispute their tickets are of the opinion that the government will never give up such a lucrative source of revenue, so we fight with the tools we are given - clogging up the system to deny the profits the government is trying to realize.

To answer your question about "safe speeding," it is the expectation that there is minimally increased risk from exceeding the limit. Yes, if something happens, you're more likely to get into an accident. Say it's something as drastic as a 100% increase in risk. It's not much of a difference if there's a .1% risk to begin with. .1% to .2% ooooooooo.

I don't know how many years you've spent on the road, but what's legal and what's safe aren't necessarily the same all the time. There's a little something called discretion that you develop as the years go by. 85+% of people on the 400 series highways can't be wrong ;)

To give you an example, I was pulled over on an interstate highway doing 65mph in a 55mph zone at 4am....with nearly no other cars on the road. I'm sure I was real dangerous there :rolleyes: If I was given a ticket instead of a warning, I can tell you now that I would've fought it.

I didn't realize " I don't like the law" was a legitimate reason. Silly me

I'm sure you were pulled over because you're speeding. You see it's a simple concept; if you go faster than the posted speed limit, you're speeding. If you speed, you might just get pulled over. The fact you don't like the speed limit, really means nothing. If you want it raised, write your MP until then, expect to get ticketed.

Humour me here, let's say you did get a ticket and fought it, what would your arguement be? Yes I was speeding but I'm a really good driver so the limit doesn't apply to me? I'm not being sarcastic here, I really want to know what think you could have said that would have worked.

[spf1971]

BS reasons?? These are basic requirements they must meet. Every time a cop writes a ticket, he should have a reasonable expectation he'll have to take the witness stand. Every time someone disputes a ticket, they need to take reasonable steps to ensure they bring the issue to trial in a reasonable amount of time. And as the defendant, you're damn right I'm going to hope they slip up!

How about the people that don't get caught - that would be almost everyone on a 400 series highway. Should they "do the right thing" and turn themselves in for speeding if they're not pulled over? The only difference between them and the ones going to court is who got caught.

On what grounds are they disputing the ticket? If you reread my posts I have said " If you have a legitimate reason to fight the ticket, take it to court." If the ONE AND ONLY reason for taking it to court is the chance the cop might not show up then you are clogging the system.

[spf1971]

This coming from a Newfie :lol: (couldn't resist)

Once again, the majority (note: majority, not all) of people have a "legitimate reason" for speeding - it's set too bloody low. The ones that dispute their tickets are of the opinion that the government will never give up such a lucrative source of revenue, so we fight with the tools we are given - clogging up the system to deny the profits the government is trying to realize.

To answer your question about "safe speeding," it is the expectation that there is minimally increased risk from exceeding the limit. Yes, if something happens, you're more likely to get into an accident. Say it's something as drastic as a 100% increase in risk. It's not much of a difference if there's a .1% risk to begin with. .1% to .2% ooooooooo.

I don't know how many years you've spent on the road, but what's legal and what's safe aren't necessarily the same all the time. There's a little something called discretion that you develop as the years go by. 85+% of people on the 400 series highways can't be wrong ;)

To give you an example, I was pulled over on an interstate highway doing 65mph in a 55mph zone at 4am....with nearly no other cars on the road. I'm sure I was real dangerous there :rolleyes: If I was given a ticket instead of a warning, I can tell you now that I would've fought it.

And there is no such thing as Civil engineers who do analysis and testing for this type of thing!

[spf1971]

This coming from a Newfie :lol: (couldn't resist).

FEEL FREE TO RESIST NEXT TIME

[Alvito]

Why don't you look at your #16 post and tell me that " safely speeding" has nothing to do with this topic. You're the one who brought it up to start with. Explain to me why your opinions are supposed to be so much more relevant and important than anyone elses? I never said speeding was the only ticket but that is what the majority of people on here are talking about; again I reference post #16, your post. If you're so adamant about being the only one who can post and discuss issues, maybe you should start your own blog, then you can make all the rules you want. Until then I'll post my opinion just as anyone else can post their own opinion.

"yeah that was a really extreme case. and a really liberal use of the expression 2 blocks from my house. and really really liberal when the kid told him that he thought he was safely speeding."

Do you mean this? I was pointing out that selpats doesn't know what he's talking about and that he lies through his teeth.

HE IS A LIAR.
WHAT HE SAID WAS NOT TRUE.
THERE WAS NO ACCIDENT 2 BLOCKS FROM HIS HOUSE.
THERE WAS NO KID THAT DIED DUE TO SPEEDING.

He mislead everyone with that and I called him out on it. He was wrong. That is why I pointed that out in this thread. To point out that he was wrong and should stop posting nonsense.

Why are my opinions more important? I never said that. Let me be clear: You have the right to voice your opinion. However, I ask that you do not discuss it in this thread.

I was not only singling you out when I said everyone thinks speeding is the only ticket. It is the conglomerate of the "naysayers" side that present that argument.

Okay, I'll make a blog and create my own rules.

Now take my advice, go make your own thread about how my thread is bad. I can guarantee you one thing, you won't have any opposition in that thread. Why? Because nobody cares about your opinion. they just want to fight their ticket the best way they can. You are either a warmonger or you just want attention, but either way you won't get any from me.


And what if they did everything right? By your logic you would then be clogging up the system; so everyone who fights a ticket with the hope that someone won't show up on trial day or it might take too long to get to court and they would win using the charter of rights without any other legitimate reason is abusing the system. If you feel that you have a legitimate defense then by all means fight your ticket. If you're only hope is that you will win on a technicality, like the 2 examples I listed, how are you not clogging up the system?

We're not abusing the courts if we hope the cop doesn't show up, or if the trial is too far away from the offence date. As a Canadian Citizen I have the right to be tried in a reasonable time and I have the right to a trial if I choose to have one. Put aside whether or not I did commit the offence. Rapists and murderers get their day in court, why can't I get mine? its a traffic ticket... in comparison to someone being hurt or killed. In other words, everyone has the right to a trial, whether they committed the offence or not.

If the court people and officer do their jobs and set up dates properly, and makes the time to come to court, then they will get a conviction and people won't be able to do what I have outline.

But until that day comes, let us discuss what we can work with now, and that is what I have outlined in the guide.


No actually it wouldn't because you would still have the same number of people hoping that the cop wouldn't show up or that the trial would be delayed so long they could win on a charter defense. How did you counter my arguement? You didn't. You just said the same things a second time. The problem is, and I'll say this slowly because your philosophical highly advanced brain is unable to comprehend simple sentences; People tie up the system with BS reasons such as MAYBE THE COP WON'T SHOW UP. It doesn't matter how well everyone else does their job, these same people will continue to try these same actions. Do you understand now? Or do you need me to dumb it down more for you?

How is that a BS reason? If the cop doesn't come to trial then there is no witness. If there is no witness, then the Crown has no proof, and the burden of proof is on them.

I will ask one more time. Please, if you want to discuss whether or not fighting traffic tickets this way is morally correct or if you wish to insult and demean the people who fight their tickets... please... PLEASE make your own thread, its not that hard.

And I also appeal to all the people that DO want to talk about their traffic tickets and ask valid questions. ADD SELPATS and SPF1971 to your ignore list.

If we don't see what they say, we don't have to worry about talking to them, and they will just lose interest since nobody can see what they are writing and move on.

Or I suggest the people who still want to debate this swap emails or MSN or phone numbers and discuss it.

Selpats spf1971 - my phone number is just a PM message away. :-0

[spf1971]

Like I said, I'll discuss my opinon just as anyone else will. If you don't like it don't come to the site.

If you want to clog the system, just don't ***** and whine about why your taxes are so high. Someone has to pay for all of the court costs.

[iluvmikeharris]

On what grounds are they disputing the ticket? If you reread my posts I have said " If you have a legitimate reason to fight the ticket, take it to court." If the ONE AND ONLY reason for taking it to court is the chance the cop might not show up then you are clogging the system.

Cop not showing up is not the one and only reason:
-cop's documentation might not be in proper order
-witnesses (if any) might not show
-crown might not respond properly to a request for disclosure

Who are you to determine what is legitimate and what isn't?

It's one thing if it was just a fine on the line. But the ramifications from an insurance point are just too great to let it go when there's a chance you can get a charge dismissed.

[Alvito]

Like I said, I'll discuss my opinon just as anyone else will. If you don't like it don't come to the site.

If you want to clog the system, just don't ***** and whine about why your taxes are so high. Someone has to pay for all of the court costs.

lol, i said you can state your opinion, but you ignore the second part of that... do it in your own thread.

haha, what kind of logical argument is that? If you don't like it don't come to the site. You think this thread is the sole reason why I am an active member of RFD?

By the same token, if YOU don't like what we are discussing here, why don't YOU not come into this thread.

And your last point terrible. Nobody has complained about high taxes, I am 100% positive that I did not complain about taxes.

[spf1971]

lol, i said you can state your opinion, but you ignore the second part of that... do it in your own thread.

haha, what kind of logical argument is that? If you don't like it don't come to the site. You think this thread is the sole reason why I am an active member of RFD?

By the same token, if YOU don't like what we are discussing here, why don't YOU not come into this thread.

And your last point terrible. Nobody has complained about high taxes, I am 100% positive that I did not complain about taxes.

I actually like discussing it with people who think differently than me. Otherwise it's really more of a monologue. A lot of people have complained about the high taxes and money grabs of the government and police. If you have never said anything like that then I apologize for the remark.

[Alvito]

I actually like discussing it with people who think differently than me. Otherwise it's really more of a monologue. A lot of people have complained about the high taxes and money grabs of the government and police. If you have never said anything like that then I apologize for the remark.

Yeah, you like being flame bait. thats wrong. go make your own thread, and maybe if your lucky people will come to indulge your needs for opposition.

monologue? you mean a blog? didn't you tell me to get one?

quote the people who complained about taxes please. I don't think anyone had said that.

yes, some people alluded to the fact that traffic tickets are a money grab for the government but thats not what you said previously. You're saying that now to divert our attention from the blatant mistake you made before.

Like I suggested before, make your own thread, swap contact information if you want to further discuss your topic. otherwise, keep on topic or post else where.

[Whitedart]

I guess the posters on this thread missed Ryan's earlier message.

This one is gonna end up locked.



Chill out everybody...

[Gloaming]

Like I said, I'll discuss my opinon just as anyone else will. If you don't like it don't come to the site.

If you want to clog the system, just don't ***** and whine about why your taxes are so high. Someone has to pay for all of the court costs.

+1

[spf1971]

quote the people who complained about taxes please. I don't think anyone had said that.

.

1.65505201 :How about...traffic tickets are being used as a revenue source rather than promotion of safety? That should be reason enough to tie up the system

2.tebore: The truth is Toronto is in cash grab mode. One of the things the city is doing to raise money is giving a crap load of tickets. We as citizens must exercise our right to a fair trial and fight this crap.

Don't believe me that they're in cash grab mode, next time you're anywhere watch how many police there are just hiding out in small streets just waiting for you to make a turn 5 mins after 4 or just going 10 over in a 40 zone during rush hour

3. csagent: Exactly, if our politicians spent less, argued amongst themselves less, and spent more time getting things done right by keeping campaign promises there would be no need for a cash grab. For @#$#$-sakes they vote themselves pay raises at least twice a year!

4. 65505201:There's less revenue for the city and there's the perception of being a "baby killer."

"Our" money? You mean money the city is trying to get their hands on under the guise of "safety"?

I can look for more if you'd like.

[spf1971]

Yeah, you like being flame bait. thats wrong. go make your own thread, and maybe if your lucky people will come to indulge your needs for opposition.

monologue? you mean a blog? didn't you tell me to get one?

quote the people who complained about taxes please. I don't think anyone had said that.

yes, some people alluded to the fact that traffic tickets are a money grab for the government but thats not what you said previously. You're saying that now to divert our attention from the blatant mistake you made before.Like I suggested before, make your own thread, swap contact information if you want to further discuss your topic. otherwise, keep on topic or post else where.

What blatant mistake is that?

[spf1971]

Yeah, you like being flame bait. thats wrong. go make your own thread, and maybe if your lucky people will come to indulge your needs for opposition.



How is wanting a discussion being flame bait? If you just want someone too say "yes sir, no sir" I'm sure you can find them. If you feel your position is right, back it up with a discussion and arguements. Otherwise, leave the discussion board to the adults.

[Alvito]

1.65505201 :How about...traffic tickets are being used as a revenue source rather than promotion of safety? That should be reason enough to tie up the system

2.tebore: The truth is Toronto is in cash grab mode. One of the things the city is doing to raise money is giving a crap load of tickets. We as citizens must exercise our right to a fair trial and fight this crap.

Don't believe me that they're in cash grab mode, next time you're anywhere watch how many police there are just hiding out in small streets just waiting for you to make a turn 5 mins after 4 or just going 10 over in a 40 zone during rush hour

3. csagent: Exactly, if our politicians spent less, argued amongst themselves less, and spent more time getting things done right by keeping campaign promises there would be no need for a cash grab. For @#$#$-sakes they vote themselves pay raises at least twice a year!

4. 65505201:There's less revenue for the city and there's the perception of being a "baby killer."

"Our" money? You mean money the city is trying to get their hands on under the guise of "safety"?

I can look for more if you'd like.

Those all have to do with traffic tickets being used as revenue for the city and government, which is something I acknowledged previously.

The quotes I wanted you to search for were the ones that people were complaining about taxes. None of the quotes you provided dealt with that issue.


What blatant mistake is that?

intially you were just talking about people "bitching and whining about taxes being raised to pay for all the court dates." then later, you tacked on people saying its revenue for the city.

that was your mistake. nobody complained about a raise in taxes. you just made that up, like how selpats made up stories about kids being run over in his neighbourhood.

[Alvito]

How is wanting a discussion being flame bait? If you just want someone too say "yes sir, no sir" I'm sure you can find them. If you feel your position is right, back it up with a discussion and arguements. Otherwise, leave the discussion board to the adults.

LOL. This is how the first thread went, I posted a guide on how to do something, there is no position involved in that. Then some people were saying fighting tickets is a bad thing. So now I'm refuting what they are saying. That makes me have a position? I wouldn't of had to defend my position in the first place if certain people, you included would have realized that this was a thread made strictly for educational purposes, and not to state my position on the topic or to discuss whether or not traffic tickets should be fought or not.

And I don't want to beat a dead horse, but if you want to discuss that.. make your own thread. But I understand your position, you're afraid nobody will come be your dance partner. And you're right, if you make your own thread, I won't interfere in your discussion and I'll stay out.

Okay, thats a subvert personal attack, and I hope the moderators see it as well. Whether or not I am an adult should not keep me from participating in a forum such as this one.

Proof of this can be found here: http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156864

apparently over 50% of the rfd population is comprised of people my age, 16-25. I'm 21 on the 16th, smack-dab right in the middle.

[65505201]

And there is no such thing as Civil engineers who do analysis and testing for this type of thing!

Yes, and if the government actually listened to civil engineers and their analysis, they would've bumped up the speed limits. Instead, they slap on speed limits like building codes without any consideration whatsoever to the actual design. Seriously, you can't tell me that a 2 lane divided highway (most sections of the 401) and a 6 lane highway (large sections of the 407) warrant the same speed limit.

Political power > engineering power.

I don't need a civil engineering degree to observe that 85%+ of drivers habitually speed +10-40 without incident. I also don't need a civil engineering degree to realize that an undivided 2 lane 80kph rural road or a twisty 90 kph highway is far more dangerous than a straight section of a 4 lane divided highway.



If you want to clog the system, just don't ***** and whine about why your taxes are so high. Someone has to pay for all of the court costs.


LOL. Taxes are high because someone has to pay for all of the court costs? Cash grabs like this are implemented because cities and provinces overextend with their spending. They are not taxing enough so they must resort to punitive measures targeting a marginalizable group of people.

Instead of, say, raising property tax rates to pay to balance out infrastructure spending, they artificially keep the rates low to keep the voters happy and go nuts with something they can criminalize.

As someone from Nfld, you should understand this. If the Nfld provincial government ran self contained budgets, they would need to increase your provincial income tax rates by alot to maintain the standard of living you enjoy. Deficit provinces balance it out with transfer payments. Cities balance it out with cash grabs such as speeding and parking tickets.

I find it laughable that you'd preach personal responsibility and not see the immorality of taking speeding fines to pay for infrastructure (which we all have equal responsibility for, speeders or not).



I didn't realize " I don't like the law" was a legitimate reason. Silly me

Humour me here, let's say you did get a ticket and fought it, what would your arguement be? Yes I was speeding but I'm a really good driver so the limit doesn't apply to me? I'm not being sarcastic here, I really want to know what think you could have said that would have worked.


"I don't like the law" is certainly a legitimate reason to break the law and defend yourself in court. If the city wants to make a buck off me, they better damn well do their homework. I have no hesitation bringing them to task because, in my mind, I was safe.

By the way, I should add that the standards for acceptable crown evidence is exceptionally low. The officer that pulled me over had a crystal clear recollection (which was wrong I should add) of my particular case out of xxxx cases from over a year ago. No written notes, nothing. The crown accepted his word with no challenge whatsoever.

Pray that you are never "wrongfully" pulled over.

EDIT: I should add that I rarely speed down here in Minneapolis. Huge ass pot holes, bumps all over the place, 50m combined on/off ramps, and offramps on both sides of the highway make me feel unsafe, even at the limit that you seem to blindly follow. I guess that's one reason why pickups and suvs are so popular down here. That and overweight americans :lol:

[Ebola]

Truth be told, myself and Nikita do not see eye to eye on a wide variety of issues.

But, she is absolutely right about if people did it right the system would be much more effective.

If police had everything lined up properly, and always showed up for court, noone would try to contest tickets on stupid **** like "maybe the officer won't show", because it wouldn't happen, it would be like hoping they lose your case.

If people recieved full disclosure promptly they wouldn't be able to use it as a stall tactic.

If the justice didn't allow postponements for things like disclosure ( see point above, they shouldnt have to ) they wouldn't have to uphold charter challenges about unreasonable wait to trial.

All of this would amount to less people trying to fight their tickets, with of course the amount of people fighting tickets hopefully being a majority of innocent people. Again, if everyone was doing their job right, there shouldn't be any innocent people being charged. Of course absolutes aren't possible with human behaviour.

If you can't grasp what she is saying, think a little harder before you flame. It's not really something you can argue against. Will it ever happen however? I'm not optimistic.

[Alvito]

Truth be told, myself and Nikita do not see eye to eye on a wide variety of issues.

But, she is absolutely right about if people did it right the system would be much more effective.

If police had everything lined up properly, and always showed up for court, noone would try to contest tickets on stupid **** like "maybe the officer won't show", because it wouldn't happen, it would be like hoping they lose your case.

If people recieved full disclosure promptly they wouldn't be able to use it as a stall tactic.

If the justice didn't allow postponements for things like disclosure ( see point above, they shouldnt have to ) they wouldn't have to uphold charter challenges about unreasonable wait to trial.

All of this would amount to less people trying to fight their tickets, with of course the amount of people fighting tickets hopefully being a majority of innocent people. Again, if everyone was doing their job right, there shouldn't be any innocent people being charged. Of course absolutes aren't possible with human behaviour.

If you can't grasp what she is saying, think a little harder before you flame. It's not really something you can argue against. Will it ever happen however? I'm not optimistic.

great post, clear and concise. thanks for reiterating nikita's points.

are you two married?

[jedijome]

this thread is pretty informative, well the first post was.
putting aside all the philosphical arguments and name calling and yelling that went on after it.

here's my take on things, should people get ticketed for speeding if they're safe? absolutely Not. in fact i'd say going 140 on the 401 at 4am on a nice clear evening is waaay safer than going 90 on the same highway during a major rainstorm or snowstorm. yet one will get you a huge ticket and the other won't get you looked at twice.

the people hey should be ticketing are those who are guilty of tailgating, unsafe lane changes, cutting people off,weaving, backing up on the highway and some of the other crazy stuff i've seen. if they really want to make the highways safer instead of just grabbing money, just have opp cars cruise up and down the highway and keep an eye on things. they're effective rolling roadblocks because as soon as people see an opp car they're all doing 99km/h and keeping to their lanes and merging safely and what not.

so if i get a ticket am i going to do whatever it takes to get out of it? absolutely. if the government is being disingenuous to start with, well that just set's the stage for everything to follow. then i'm absolutely going to use every facility i have avaliable to me.

[Alvito]

this thread is pretty informative, well the first post was.
putting aside all the philosphical arguments and name calling and yelling that went on after it.

here's my take on things, should people get ticketed for speeding if they're safe? absolutely Not. in fact i'd say going 140 on the 401 at 4am on a nice clear evening is waaay safer than going 90 on the same highway during a major rainstorm or snowstorm. yet one will get you a huge ticket and the other won't get you looked at twice.

the people hey should be ticketing are those who are guilty of tailgating, unsafe lane changes, cutting people off,weaving, backing up on the highway and some of the other crazy stuff i've seen. if they really want to make the highways safer instead of just grabbing money, just have opp cars cruise up and down the highway and keep an eye on things. they're effective rolling roadblocks because as soon as people see an opp car they're all doing 99km/h and keeping to their lanes and merging safely and what not.

so if i get a ticket am i going to do whatever it takes to get out of it? absolutely. if the government is being disingenuous to start with, well that just set's the stage for everything to follow. then i'm absolutely going to use every facility i have avaliable to me.

yep, that would be a good idea. have rolling police cars, instead of cops just hiding behind a bush waiting for you.

an actual rolling cop car would deter speeders more. good point.

and i apologize on the behalf of everyone in this thread about the fighting. its so ridiculous but it happens.

[Psubs]

Like I said, I'll discuss my opinon just as anyone else will. If you don't like it don't come to the site.

If you want to clog the system, just don't ***** and whine about why your taxes are so high. Someone has to pay for all of the court costs.

That statement is flawed. Have you seen the sheer volume of revenue being made to cover all costs?

At the Eglinton courthouse (I think 4 courtrooms), in one session (I think 4 per day) there may be 20 defendants and maybe 17 out of the 20 plea. Each of the people that plea end up paying between $40 - $80. That should cover the judge, prosecutor, clerk, all the people that process the paperwork, etc, and create a surplus of revenue.

[Psubs]

this thread is pretty informative, well the first post was.
putting aside all the philosphical arguments and name calling and yelling that went on after it.

here's my take on things, should people get ticketed for speeding if they're safe? absolutely Not. in fact i'd say going 140 on the 401 at 4am on a nice clear evening is waaay safer than going 90 on the same highway during a major rainstorm or snowstorm. yet one will get you a huge ticket and the other won't get you looked at twice.

the people hey should be ticketing are those who are guilty of tailgating, unsafe lane changes, cutting people off,weaving, backing up on the highway and some of the other crazy stuff i've seen. if they really want to make the highways safer instead of just grabbing money, just have opp cars cruise up and down the highway and keep an eye on things. they're effective rolling roadblocks because as soon as people see an opp car they're all doing 99km/h and keeping to their lanes and merging safely and what not.

so if i get a ticket am i going to do whatever it takes to get out of it? absolutely. if the government is being disingenuous to start with, well that just set's the stage for everything to follow. then i'm absolutely going to use every facility i have available to me.

Gas is expensive, so that would not be good for the cops. Also it's easier to sit around then drive all day. Also pacing a car can be beaten more easily in court than radar.


Question, WTF is Laser? In my pre-trial discussions with the prosecutor, the cop let slip that he was using a laser. Could he have been mistaken? The trial date was re-scheduled to May 1st. I want disclosure. Would it disclose what type of gun they used?

[Ebola]

Gas is expensive, so that would not be good for the cops. Also it's easier to sit around then drive all day. Also pacing a car can be beaten more easily in court than radar.


Question, WTF is Laser? In my pre-trial discussions with the prosecutor, the cop let slip that he was using a laser. Could he have been mistaken? The trial date was re-scheduled to May 1st. I want disclosure. Would it disclose what type of gun they used?

Most police services has switched to LIDAR. (Basically light detection and ranging.)

It's easier to turn of and on so that they don't have to leave the device on (ala radar) , has a longer range and quicker response (seeing as it it using the speed of light, not sound).

[Psubs]

Most police services has switched to LIDAR. (Basically light detection and ranging.)

It's easier to turn of and on so that they don't have to leave the device on (ala radar) , has a longer range and quicker response (seeing as it it using the speed of light, not sound).

Has it received judicial notice? :confused:

Please provide a link. I've been searching and can't find one.

[Nikita]

No actually it wouldn't because you would still have the same number of people hoping that the cop wouldn't show up or that the trial would be delayed so long they could win on a charter defense. How did you counter my arguement? You didn't. You just said the same things a second time. The problem is, and I'll say this slowly because your philosophical highly advanced brain is unable to comprehend simple sentences; People tie up the system with BS reasons such as MAYBE THE COP WON'T SHOW UP. It doesn't matter how well everyone else does their job, these same people will continue to try these same actions. Do you understand now? Or do you need me to dumb it down more for you?

My philosophical highly advanced brain tells me that a cop showing up to court to give evidence regarding a ticket he issued is part of 'doing his job right'. What is so difficult about that for you to understand? I can't even possibly dummy it down any further for you....yep, it's just that simple..

[15-20_God]

My philosophical highly advanced brain tells me that a cop showing up to court to give evidence regarding a ticket he issued is part of 'doing his job right'.

my ideal solution would be to mail the disclosure with the confirmation of trial date, make it mandatory for officers to show up for trial, impose financial penalties (court costs) for convictions, and have the province issue more traffic tickets to pay for all this. and implement all this before we have traffic anarchy ie. ppl taking advantage of hov lanes, ppl driving at 140 km/h because 100 is too slow, ppl parking in the middle of yonge st with their hazards on so they can grab a coffee, drivers running reds because they're late, rolling stops because a "stop" sign is just a recommendation, cars blocking the intersection, etc.

[Alvito]

Gas is expensive, so that would not be good for the cops. Also it's easier to sit around then drive all day. Also pacing a car can be beaten more easily in court than radar.


Question, WTF is Laser? In my pre-trial discussions with the prosecutor, the cop let slip that he was using a laser. Could he have been mistaken? The trial date was re-scheduled to May 1st. I want disclosure. Would it disclose what type of gun they used?

yes it will disclose the name of it. and if you wanted to you could send a letter to the police station asking for the manual, but they are not obligated to give it to you.

[Ebola]

Has it received judicial notice? :confused:

Please provide a link. I've been searching and can't find one.

It's been around for over 4 years now, so yes it's been through all the hoops.

Here's a piece done by a LE website that explains how it works.

It's big benefit is that it is very hard to detect in advance, because you just point and shoot when you need to, and you can pick out individual cars much easier than with radar.

http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=20&id=33486

[Nikita]

my ideal solution would be to mail the disclosure with the confirmation of trial date, make it mandatory for officers to show up for trial, impose financial penalties (court costs) for convictions, and have the province issue more traffic tickets to pay for all this. and implement all this before we have traffic anarchy ie. ppl taking advantage of hov lanes, ppl driving at 140 km/h because 100 is too slow, ppl parking in the middle of yonge st with their hazards on so they can grab a coffee, drivers running reds because they're late, rolling stops because a "stop" sign is just a recommendation, cars blocking the intersection, etc.

Add to that impose financial penalties for cops who don't show up for the court date and for once 15_20, we may actually be in agreement on something...;)

BTW, though court costs aren't imposed technically when a defendant loses their trial, a surcharge is added to the ticket/fine, so some costs are recovered from the defendant. When a defendant wins however, no recovery of costs is made from the cop or the Crown or from anyone else who caused the matter to go to trial because they didn't do their job right, or even if they did, because they weren't able to prove the charge.

[bobbings]

What spf1971 is saying is that we should all do the right thing and accept our responsibilities for our own actions. So what about those who speed and get away with it? They committed an infraction but should they do the right thing and turn themselves in? In your ideal world, that might be the case but the reality is people will not turn themselves just like how given the right to a fair trial for a speeding infraction, people will take it to try and fight it off. I totally agree with Nikita about the cops doing what they're supposed to do. If the cops did that, then the chances of having tickets dropped will be slim and thus, it will decrease the amount of people trying to fight it.

People who get a ticket and decides to fight it for whatever reason is not doing anything wrong in that process. They are given the right to do so and I believe that we should fight it given the chance to. Clogging up the system is not only our problem but both sides should be responsible for it but more so for the government to make revisions and improvements to the court system.

If you think people using the Charter of Rights and the limitations defense to fight a ticket is immoral, then do what you can to change the Charter but you're not going to convince the rest of us that we shouldn't fight the ticket. The right was given to all of us and we have every right to use it if we feel it is applicable. If it's wrong, then that specific Charter defense shouldn't exist.

[Nikita]

What spf1971 is saying is that we should all do the right thing and accept our responsibilities for our own actions.

.

Umm, no, that's what I've been saying. His definition of 'everybody' mean the defedant only. Apparently, in his world, the people in the system don't need do their job right or take responsibilty for failing to do so. When a case fails because the other side didn't do their job right, they are the ones responsible for clogging the system, not the defendant. Bot not in spf1971's worldview, nooo, it's always the defendant's fault when the government side screws up and doesn't provide due process, the thing that sets our democratic system apart from dictatorship type of legal systems.

[budric]

In Ontario you get charged court fees on top of the fine. Since you're already paying for your use of the court, you're not clogging up the system. You're are either choosing to use the courts you already paid for or not use them, but pay the fee anyway.

[woodstock827]

In Ontario you get charged court fees on top of the fine. Since you're already paying for your use of the court, you're not clogging up the system. You're are either choosing to use the courts you already paid for or not use them, but pay the fee anyway.

+1
How is it my fault if the court can't find me guilty? That's how the system work.

[Psubs]

My philosophical highly advanced brain tells me that a cop showing up to court to give evidence regarding a ticket he issued is part of 'doing his job right'. What is so difficult about that for you to understand? I can't even possibly dummy it down any further for you....yep, it's just that simple..

The cop gets time and a half for court duty as incentive to show up.

[Psubs]

It's been around for over 4 years now, so yes it's been through all the hoops.

Here's a piece done by a LE website that explains how it works.

It's big benefit is that it is very hard to detect in advance, because you just point and shoot when you need to, and you can pick out individual cars much easier than with radar.

http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=20&id=33486

But you can miss and go right through the windsheild.

[Psubs]

It's been around for over 4 years now, so yes it's been through all the hoops.

Here's a piece done by a LE website that explains how it works.

It's big benefit is that it is very hard to detect in advance, because you just point and shoot when you need to, and you can pick out individual cars much easier than with radar.

http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=20&id=33486

What about in Ontario? :confused:

[Ebola]

What about in Ontario? :confused:

If you aren't going to take my word for it that law enforcement in Ontario and in Canada has been using LIDAR for awhile now, then please go find evidence to disprove my statement yourself.

[bobbings]

Umm, no, that's what I've been saying. His definition of 'everybody' mean the defedant only. Apparently, in his world, the people in the system don't need do their job right or take responsibilty for failing to do so. When a case fails because the other side didn't do their job right, they are the ones responsible for clogging the system, not the defendant. Bot not in spf1971's worldview, nooo, it's always the defendant's fault when the government side screws up and doesn't provide due process, the thing that sets our democratic system apart from dictatorship type of legal systems.

I stand corrected. lol Hey, it's hard to type up something well thought out while trying to take notes in class at the same time... :D

[Psubs]

If you aren't going to take my word for it that law enforcement in Ontario and in Canada has been using LIDAR for awhile now, then please go find evidence to disprove my statement yourself.

Sorry, I don't know who you are. >:(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIDAR


LIDAR has very serious problems associated with "sweep" error. Sweep error is almost always present because automobiles are typically targeted at distances ranging from several hundred feet to over one thousand feet. If the targets were flat surfaces moving forward, such as a large semi-tractor trailer truck, LIDAR can be more accurate. But, when the target is a jelly-bean-shaped automobile or SUV, sweep error is inevitable. Most traffic LIDAR systems send out a stream of approximately 100 pulses over the span of three-tenths of a second. A "black box," proprietary statistical algorithm picks and chooses which progressively shorter reflections to retain from the pulses over the short fraction of a second.

I would have no arguement if he used Radar as it was late at night and there was no one else really on the road.

Ooooooh, this is interesting.

http://www.sunley.ca/lidar.htm

I wish I could find something more recent than 2001. :(

[Ebola]

Sorry, I don't know who you are. >:(

Again, I can tell you are hoping there is a loophole involving the use of the LIDAR.

The use of the LIDAR itself it not challengable.

[pintobean]

Most police services has switched to LIDAR.


Has it received judicial notice? :confused:

Please provide a link. I've been searching and can't find one.
Psubs here is a link to an Ontario Appeals Court decision where a driver that had been convicted of speeding, appealed his conviction and tried to challenge the use of laser (LIDAR). He was unsuccessful in his appeal: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2006/2006oncj318/2006oncj318.html

If you don't want to read the whole decision, here are the Coles notes:


Michael McLachlan was convicted after trial for speeding 136 kilometres per hour in a posted 100 kilometres zone on 30 January 2003.
At trial the prosecution called one witness, Ontario Provincial Police constable David Aucoin.
Constable Aucoin testified that he is a trained and qualified laser operator and instructor and was operating a laser Marksman LTI 2020, serial number 01147 on which he has received training in its use.
Constable Aucoin testified that at 11:30 a.m. he observed a blue P.T. Cruiser motor vehicle travelling in the passing lane coming towards him. He testified that the car was moving faster than any other vehicle in his sight so he aimed the laser device directly at the front grill and activated the device, which gave a speed reading of 136 kilometres per hour from a distance of 330.7 metres away.
As a result, Constable Aucoin stopped the vehicle and gave the driver, Michael McLachlin, a ticket.
After being convicted at trial, McLachlin appealed.
One of his grounds for appeal was to challenge the accuracy of the laser (LIDAR).
On this issue, the judge hearing the appeal said the following:



At one time some judges in the Ontario Court of Justice treated laser devices as “novel technology” and therefore concluded that, in addition to the manufacturer’s recommended tests the laser device must be tested independently through a “comparison test” with an older technology, a radar device. This was the conclusion in R. v. Wong [2000] O.J. No. 1442 and R. v. Bourne [2001] O.J. No. 2869 where Justices Terry O’Hara and James Karswick decided that the prosecution needed to provide scientific evidence of the independent verification of the accuracy of the laser device. A notable dissent from this view was articulated by Justice Gregory Pockele in R. v. Mukasa; R. v. Spinosa; R. v. O’Brien [2001] O.J. No. 262, where Justice Pockele concluded that laser speed detection was no longer a novel form of technology and did not need to be tested scientifically against older and proven technology. In Bourne, Justice Karswick specifically relied on the decision of Justice Kathryn Feldman of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Vancrey [2000] O.J. No. 3033 in concluding that there needed to be evidence of independent “comparison” testing.

[19] In a subsequent decision which reviewed the earlier cases, R. v. Le [2002] O.J. No. 894, Justice David Fairgrieve of this court concluded that Justice Pockele’s view was the correct one, and ruled that it was no longer necessary for the prosecution to lead evidence of “comparison” testing with an accurate radar unit or other device. In so doing, Justice Fairgrieve specifically addressed the reasoning of Madam Justice Feldman in Vancrey and in his view the decision in Vancrey does not require testing against older technology, as Justice Karswick concluded. On this point I prefer Justice Fairgrieve’s interpretation to that of Justice Karswick.

[20] Justice Fairgrieve’s decision is that, because of the consistent and regular use of the laser speed technology, we have now reached a time in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada that trial judges may take judicial notice of the fact that the laser speed device is settled technology and that the manufacturer’s recommended procedures to test the accuracy of the machine are sufficient. Justice Fairgrieve’s view has been followed by at least three other judges in this court in reported cases, Justice Marion Lane in R. v. Odusanya [2002] O.J. No. 3209, Justice Joseph Kenkel in R. v. Sepiashvili [2003] O.J. No. 3996 and Justice Jeff Casey in R. v. Khalatbari [2004] O. J. No. 4167.

[21] In my view it can now be stated with certainty that the laser technology is no longer “novel” and may be received in evidence in Ontario without expert evidence, where the laser operator can testify that he has been trained in the use of the device and has followed the manufacturer’s recommended testing procedures both before and after using the device.

I hope that answers your question.

[Alvito]

Again, I can tell you are hoping there is a loophole involving the use of the LIDAR.

The use of the LIDAR itself it not challengable.

It has to be calibrated before and after the officers shift. If he didn't do that, then you have grounds to say it wasn't functioning properly. But to build a case around that is hard, because it won't be in the disclosure, and to even know the proper testing methods, you would need the manual from the manufacturer.

[Nikita]

Again, I can tell you are hoping there is a loophole involving the use of the LIDAR.

The use of the LIDAR itself it not challengable.

Correct, literally. But the use of any particular machine is challengeable on grounds relating to proper usage, proper interpretation, calibration etc., just as the use of breathalyzer machines, while accepted technology by the courts, are challenged quite often. Not arguing, just clarifying.

[Alvito]

Correct, literally. But the use of any particular machine is challengeable on grounds relating to proper usage, proper interpretation, calibration etc., just as the use of breathalyzer machines, while accepted technology by the courts, are challenged quite often. Not arguing, just clarifying.

that is correct. every time the prosecution presents its case, the officer will always say the generic phrase "this device is capable of accurately determining speed, I am trained in its usage... etc"

so every time there is a case, the crown has to make sure the cop says that little speech before he testifies.

[Ebola]

Correct, literally. But the use of any particular machine is challengeable on grounds relating to proper usage, proper interpretation, calibration etc., just as the use of breathalyzer machines, while accepted technology by the courts, are challenged quite often. Not arguing, just clarifying.

Right as usual.

I was blathering on about how you can't challenge the ticket solely on the basis of LIDAR technology itself. (which does have flaws like any tools), since it had received judicial notice, which pintobean , not being lazy like me was nice enough to look up.

In no way did I mean to imply you can't challenge the application of tools. (For example if the PC was radar the speed of the squirrel crossing the road. :p) I kid...

Get challenges all the time on ASD demands.. was their a clear chain of observation leading to the demand.. last time device was calibrated.. etc etc.

[loosecannon]

Hey guys, here's my friends situation

He got a ticket for doing 80 in a 60 (reduced to 70 afterwards) and also having blue license plate covers (I wonder why this is illegal when RETAILERS SELL THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE?!) and his court date is this Friday. This is court date was already a rescheduled date, but he wants to reschedule again. He says he might not be able to do it, so he wants ME to go in for him and tell the judge that "he has a midterm and cannot make it. Can I request another court date on his behalf?"

Now that being said, will they grant him another court date or still charge him for not showing up to his own offense? I just wanna make sure... Thanks.

[selpats]

Hey guys, here's my friends situation

He got a ticket for doing 80 in a 60 (reduced to 70 afterwards) and also having blue license plate covers (I wonder why this is illegal when RETAILERS SELL THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE?!) and his court date is this Friday. This is court date was already a rescheduled date, but he wants to reschedule again. He says he might not be able to do it, so he wants ME to go in for him and tell the judge that "he has a midterm and cannot make it. Can I request another court date on his behalf?"

Now that being said, will they grant him another court date or still charge him for not showing up to his own offense? I just wanna make sure... Thanks.

Oh man, thanks so much for the laugh, I really appreciate that. The 'license plate cover/retailer thing' and then the 'can't make it to court because of mid-terms' thing... I think I just pee'd myself I was laughing so hard...:cheesygri

Thanks again!

[Whitedart]

Hey guys, here's my friends situation

He got a ticket for doing 80 in a 60 (reduced to 70 afterwards) and also having blue license plate covers (I wonder why this is illegal when RETAILERS SELL THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE?!) and his court date is this Friday. This is court date was already a rescheduled date, but he wants to reschedule again. He says he might not be able to do it, so he wants ME to go in for him and tell the judge that "he has a midterm and cannot make it. Can I request another court date on his behalf?"

Now that being said, will they grant him another court date or still charge him for not showing up to his own offense? I just wanna make sure... Thanks.

If the court has already adjourned the case once at your friend's request, it is unlikely they will grant another adjournment. Your friend would have had to agree to the the future date when it was set.
You could represent your friend, but would not be permitted to provide any evidence on his behalf if the justice wanted to proceed that day. The officer gives his evidence, you could question the officer, but provide no evidence for you friends defence, your friend may/will get convicted on both charges.

The best bet would be to bargain with the prosecutor by pleading on one charge (10k over), and having the 2nd charge withdrawn (obstructed plate).

As a side note, if you request an adjournment for any reason, it is noted by the court and you essentially waive your right to challenge a delayed trial later.

[loosecannon]

Hmmm, thanks Whitedart. But I seem to have my information mixed up. This is actually his first court date, so I guess me being there instead of him and requesting for an adjournment will be alright?

[Whitedart]

This is court date was already a rescheduled date, but he wants to reschedule again.

I was basing my comments on you comment above.

If this is the first court date, you can ask for the adjournment and will likely receive it, but be prepared to set a trial date that is acceptable to the prosecutor AND your friend. It will most probably be a selection of several dates when the officer is available for court.

Again, it will be noted by the Justice and prosecutor that you have requested the adjournment and why.

[Rekognize]

Thanks Alvito, I have a court date in July.. this should help :)

[bobbings]

Oh man, thanks so much for the laugh, I really appreciate that. The 'license plate cover/retailer thing' and then the 'can't make it to court because of mid-terms' thing... I think I just pee'd myself I was laughing so hard...:cheesygri

Thanks again!

?

What's so funny that you pee'd yourself?

:confused:

[kristiangeorgiev]

Hey,

I got a speeding ticket for doing 71 on the Bloor Humber Bridge (between Old Mill and Jane) which is apparently a 50 zone.
I had no idea.

anyways, here is my question. Section 128(6) of the Highway Traffic Act says that a speed limit sign must be posted at both approaches to the Bridge.
There aren't any there.

Can I use this defense?

If I ask the cop questions that will take away his credibility, (prove that he can't remember that long ago), will I be able to bring that in, and also defense of the calibration and usage of the laser gun?

Thanks!

[kristiangeorgiev]

Here is the HTA Section 128 (6)

Rate on bridges

(6) If the council of a municipality by by-law prescribes a lower rate of speed for motor vehicles passing over a bridge on a highway under its jurisdiction than is prescribed under subsection (1), signs indicating the maximum rate of speed shall be posted in a conspicuous place at each approach to the bridge. 2006, c. 32, Sched. D, s. 4 (7).

[Psubs]

Hey,

I got a speeding ticket for doing 71 on the Bloor Humber Bridge (between Old Mill and Jane) which is apparently a 50 zone.
I had no idea.

anyways, here is my question. Section 128(6) of the Highway Traffic Act says that a speed limit sign must be posted at both approaches to the Bridge.
There aren't any there.

Can I use this defense?

If I ask the cop questions that will take away his credibility, (prove that he can't remember that long ago), will I be able to bring that in, and also defense of the calibration and usage of the laser gun?

Thanks!

I got off the highway via South Kingsway and turned on to Bloor. Is there really no speed limit sign around there? I might have to drive by. I got nailed after the bridge just turning around the bend towards Old Mill station.

Is there a default speed limit like 60 km / hr?

[Whitedart]

I got off the highway via South Kingsway and turned on to Bloor. Is there really no speed limit sign around there? I might have to drive by. I got nailed after the bridge just turning around the bend towards Old Mill station.

Is there a default speed limit like 60 km / hr?

The default speed limt in urban (built up) areas within Ontario is 50 kn/hr unless otherwise posted. As I recall, this is included on the G1 written test that everyone has to take. In the Toronto area, if you are not driving on a highway, assume the limit is 50 k where no signs indicate otherwise.

Just found the reference, HTA section 128 (1)

[kristiangeorgiev]

I got off the highway via South Kingsway and turned on to Bloor. Is there really no speed limit sign around there? I might have to drive by. I got nailed after the bridge just turning around the bend towards Old Mill station.

Is there a default speed limit like 60 km / hr?

that's where i got caught too! just at Old Mill station.. stupid cop.. wouldn't let me off with a warning.. I've never been pulled over before that..

[pfdude]

So I got a ticket for turning right onto Bay St. between 4-6pm. My trial is set for a little over a year after the date of offense. Should I go ahead with the plan to challenge my constitutional rights? Or should I still request disclosure?

[Nikita]

So I got a ticket for turning right onto Bay St. between 4-6pm. My trial is set for a little over a year after the date of offense. Should I go ahead with the plan to challenge my constitutional rights? Or should I still request disclosure?

Why do people always link these two issues like they have anything to do with each other? You should always get disclosure, you might find you actually have a defense based on what's in there. The only time disclosure will help you with a delay defense is if you've requested it, didn't get it, and because of that there is unacceptable delay which is therefore attributable to the Crown (though this rarely happens). You not requesting disclosure gets you nowhere.

[pacman99]

^on a related note (sorry to randomly bud in) but I was told requesting disclosure on a first ticket while attempting to fight it in court will drastically affect my chances of getting a reduced sentence if my defence fails. Any truth to that?
73 in a 50 zone in case someone's wondering, I don't think I was going more than 60 though (logically speaking given the conditions).

[Whitedart]

^on a related note (sorry to randomly bud in) but I was told requesting disclosure on a first ticket while attempting to fight it in court will drastically affect my chances of getting a reduced sentence if my defence fails. Any truth to that?
73 in a 50 zone in case someone's wondering, I don't think I was going more than 60 though (logically speaking given the conditions).

Requesting disclosure should not have any impact on a plea bargain for a reduced sentence on a conviction. However, it will draw more attention to the fact that you are likely pleading not guilty, and more effort may be made to get the officer to attend the trial.

[at1212b]

I think the reason why people are so scared of speeding tickets or any is the insurance impact. Most I assume would not mind paying the fine as long as there is no convicted record for the insurance company to see and therefore raise the rates for the next year or so.

Another question: What if the cop says he isn't going to challenge the ticket.. is that a sign to challenge the ticket and evidence, and make sure to not accept any pleas from the prosecutor?

[st7860]

I think the reason why people are so scared of speeding tickets or any is the insurance impact. Most I assume would not mind paying the fine as long as there is no convicted record for the insurance company to see and therefore raise the rates for the next year or so.

Another question: What if the cop says he isn't going to challenge the ticket.. is that a sign to challenge the ticket and evidence, and make sure to not accept any pleas from the prosecutor?

over here in BC tickets don't matter that much. 1 or 2 do nothing, and 3 or 4 start costing you money but not something ridiculous like $3000 a year or something like that.

[Nikita]

^on a related note (sorry to randomly bud in) but I was told requesting disclosure on a first ticket while attempting to fight it in court will drastically affect my chances of getting a reduced sentence if my defence fails. Any truth to that?
73 in a 50 zone in case someone's wondering, I don't think I was going more than 60 though (logically speaking given the conditions).

Getting disclosure has absolutely no effect on the proceedings or any detrimental effect on the outcome. Everybody should get disclosure, it's part of the process and often is the only information from which you might be able to determine whether or not you have a valid defense.

Cops don't even know if you've gotten you'e disclosure unless they go out of their way to ask the Crown, which rarely if ever happens. Disclosure is provided by the 'court services' office, not the police department.

So, no, getting disclosure will not affect your chances off getting a reduced sentence. Commencing trial will, because at that point all deals are off the table between you and the prosecutor and you're now putting it into the hands of the JP, who's only role is to find you guilty or not. In a trial, unless evidence is given that forms the elements of another offense (a lesser or greater) offence, the JP has the discretion to amend the information in that regard. My experience is that they use that discretion judically and rarely actually change the charge.

So get your disclosure, everybody should do that as a minimum, and before they decide how they want to proceed, i.e., plea agreement, trial etc. If you lose at trial, the fact that you had requested your disclosure has absolutely no effect on sentencing.

[dealguy2]

over here in BC tickets don't matter that much. 1 or 2 do nothing, and 3 or 4 start costing you money but not something ridiculous like $3000 a year or something like that.

This is changing. Starting Jan 2009 in BC you start getting dinged for one or more motor vehicle act conviction. Worse yet, it's not part of insurance so you have to pay whether you actually drive or not. You pay for any convictions in a 3 year period. In BC you should ALWAYS fight a traffic ticket.

[infared_vision]

looking for some help...

got a ticket going 75 in a 50 zone (construction)..it was reduce already to 25 over.....on the ticket the cop put workers present, however there were none...

i am going to see the prosecutor this week...looking for some tips.

from what i have read i should look to get it down to a minor charge 15 over and no points - is this common when going to see the prosecutor and if so would this impact my insurance.

if i take this to court i am not sure what type of defense i could come up with

your help is appreciated.

[infared_vision]

aight...

went to court today...seen a prosecutor...didn't have to say much they drop the charge to 15 over no points..but decided to fight the ticket because either way my insurance is still going up 5%....


i got my court date in 1 month.....what do i need to do now ?

i've read i should try to get the date rescheduled...how do i go about doing so ?


please help me out

Thanks !

[Nikita]

You read you should try to get the date reschuled...for what purpose? Cuz if it's in anticipation for a s.11(b) delay argument, YOUR adjournemnts don't count. So what benefit do you think there is to adjourn to a later date?

[dinb]

If you aren't going to take my word for it that law enforcement in Ontario and in Canada has been using LIDAR for awhile now, then please go find evidence to disprove my statement yourself.

You are getting mad, but this is exactly the point... this guy will waste everyone's time looking for a minor error in the process to try to get off. How would you feel if he destroyed your car then got off on a wrongly spelled laser or lazer or whatever.

Point is, this all depends on where you stand. As the defendent, sure it is good to know these tricks. But, as a victim, it is not always as pleasant as many of you make it. Few years ago I got rear ended pretty bad by a young driver who was talking to friends and not watching the road. Cop charged her with reckless driving which seemed appropriate. At the trial, he never showed up, and even though the person pleaded guilty, the judge INSISTED the person take a lesser charge instead. Now, if this same driver goes and kills your kid, will you be all happy that even though your kid is dead, the justice was served the first time around because the POOR reckless driver was not charged due to the cop not showing up.

[infared_vision]

You read you should try to get the date reschuled...for what purpose? Cuz if it's in anticipation for a s.11(b) delay argument, YOUR adjournemnts don't count. So what benefit do you think there is to adjourn to a later date?


cop might not show up......

[pintobean]

You read you should try to get the date reschuled...for what purpose? Cuz if it's in anticipation for a s.11(b) delay argument, YOUR adjournemnts don't count. So what benefit do you think there is to adjourn to a later date?


cop might not show up......
Unfortunately for you, this is a big myth...

When you decide to challenge your ticket and apply for a court date, one of the first things the court clerks do, is contact the officer and obtain a list of dates that are convenient for him to appear in court. Then they schedule your trial on the earliest possible date.

If you decide to reschedule the first date, the court clerks will simply look back at the officer's list of convenient dates and reschedule you for the next available date.

So no matter what you do, the court date you end up with will always be "pre-screened" by the cop to increase the chances that he can be there to testify against you.

If your officer doesn't show up for your trial, it'll probably be for some other reason, and not because your rescheduling trick inconvenienced him...

In fact, I would say that rescheduling your court dates can actually cause you more harm, since it completely eliminates your chances at an 11(b) defence.

[infared_vision]

Unfortunately for you, this is a big myth...

When you decide to challenge your ticket and apply for a court date, one of the first things the court clerks do, is contact the officer and obtain a list of dates that are convenient for him to appear in court. Then they schedule your trial on the earliest possible date.

If you decide to reschedule the first date, the court clerks will simply look back at the officer's list of convenient dates and reschedule you for the next available date.

So no matter what you do, the court date you end up with will always be "pre-screened" by the cop to increase the chances that he can be there to testify against you.

If your officer doesn't show up for your trial, it'll probably be for some other reason, and not because your rescheduling trick inconvenienced him...

In fact, I would say that rescheduling your court dates can actually cause you more harm, since it completely eliminates your chances at an 11(b) defence.


thanks for the info....so i guess i need to hope the cop doesn't show u...

is it true that before the trial the cop/prosecutor will try and bargain w. you again ?

[weedb0y]

Unfortunately for you, this is a big myth...

When you decide to challenge your ticket and apply for a court date, one of the first things the court clerks do, is contact the officer and obtain a list of dates that are convenient for him to appear in court. Then they schedule your trial on the earliest possible date.

If you decide to reschedule the first date, the court clerks will simply look back at the officer's list of convenient dates and reschedule you for the next available date.

So no matter what you do, the court date you end up with will always be "pre-screened" by the cop to increase the chances that he can be there to testify against you.

If your officer doesn't show up for your trial, it'll probably be for some other reason, and not because your rescheduling trick inconvenienced him...

In fact, I would say that rescheduling your court dates can actually cause you more harm, since it completely eliminates your chances at an 11(b) defence.

It helped in my case. By the time it was re-scheudled, cop nor me even had no idea about the specifics of the situation. The purpose is to make his evidence as weak as possible.

[infared_vision]

It helped in my case. By the time it was re-scheudled, cop nor me even had no idea about the specifics of the situation. The purpose is to make his evidence as weak as possible.

but didn't they have the info from your ticket on file ???????

[pintobean]

thanks for the info....so i guess i need to hope the cop doesn't show u...

is it true that before the trial the cop/prosecutor will try and bargain w. you again ?
Yes, it is very likely that the prosecutor will "plea bargain" with you again before your trial. Their goal is to obtain as many convictions as possible, in the least amount of time...

Having said that, I should point out that you may not get the same "deal" as what was offered during your First Attendance appointment, because it may be a different prosecutor that appears at your trial. Also, I have personally seen defendants not get a plea bargain offer at all; this usually happens where the police officer says that he already reduced the ticket at the roadside, but I have also seen it happen in cases where the prosecutor feels that the defendant doesn't deserve to get a deal (i.e. the defendant was rude to the prosecutor, is a repeat offender or has unnecessarily wasted the court's time with bogus adjournments).


It helped in my case. By the time it was re-scheudled, cop nor me even had no idea about the specifics of the situation. The purpose is to make his evidence as weak as possible.
Congratulations on winning your case, but I highly doubt that you won because you rescheduled your original trial date. I would guess that you won your case because the officer failed to make good notes about what happened, and therefore couldn't use them to refresh his memory at your trial.

If you don't believe me, go and sit in on a few trials. I'd be willing to bet that 99 times out of 100, the cop needs to refer to his notes to refresh his memory. This is because most traffic court trials occur 8-12 months after the offence date, and it is virtually impossible for a cop to adequately remember the details without his notes. Now if your cop made crappy notes, then it wouldn't matter if the trial was happening 8 months after the offence or 80 months after the offence...the end result would still be that the cop didn't have good notes to refresh his memory, and therefore couldn't testify.

[Jeff-TheBiz]

Not looking to clog the system, but I am trying to keep a good record clean.

Seems like the resident experts on fighting tickets are all on this thread.

http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=594365


Can anyone, elaborate on this thread... I have asked a couple of questions on it, but have failed to get a direct answer. Thanx in advance.

[Nikita]

Not looking to clog the system, but I am trying to keep a good record clean.

Seems like the resident experts on fighting tickets are all on this thread.

http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=594365


Can anyone, elaborate on this thread... I have asked a couple of questions on it, but have failed to get a direct answer. Thanx in advance.

Left a post in that thread for you....hope it helps.

[puminghi]

Hey guys, recently a lot of you have been PMing me asking me how to file for disclosure and stuff like that. So instead of replying to each PM, I'm just going to post everything I know in here.

Section 1: I got a Traffic ticket, what now?

First off, it doesn't matter what the traffic ticket was for, fight it. In some cases the cop may not show up, and then the prosecution will have to drop the charges. But don't bet on this to be the case, you have to be prepared as well.

So you've got the ticket and you're bummed out. What should you do? Go to the court house on the back of the ticket, and file for a court date to challenge the police officer's evidence. You will receive a letter in the mail in a few months telling you when your court date is.

Next step is to file for disclosure.

Disclosure is what the officer wrote down when he pulled you over. Which street, which lane you were in, a short description of what happened (speeding, illegal turn... etc) and details about your car. Why is disclosure important to you? Simply, if you are to prepare any sort of credible defense, you will need to know what evidence they have against you in order to try and refute or disprove it.

For example, lets say I received disclosure, and the officer wrote down I was driving a purple car. On my registration it says my car is red. When the officer swears in at the trial and says purple car, speeding... blah blah blah... when it is my turn to cross examine him, I will ask "What colour was the car again?" He'll say "purple", I'll ask one more time, "You are sure it is purple?" and he will respond "yes", then I whip out my registration, and the justice will see the word "RED" and think the cop isnt a credible witness anymore. I do not know if that is enough to raise enough doubt, but purple and red are two totally different colours, if it was light blue and dark blue, then maybe. But red and purple, the justice should throw it out.

So you can see how it is important to know what the officer is going to say before he says it. That is why you need disclosure.

Here is what you need to do:

Model your letter after this... http://www.magma.ca/~fyst/disclose.htm

Mail this letter to the prosecutors office and the court house. The court house address can be found on the back of the ticket and the trial notice letter they send you. For the prosecutors office, you will have to call the number on the back of the ticket, and ask a representative, make sure to take down their name so you can say that in court if your letter doesn't reach its destination. Also send more than one letter, this will look great on your part if you dont receive it, but have proof that you sent it numerous times. I sent mine out twice and got no response, at the initial trial the justice did ask me how many times I sent it, and I said twice, 2 months before the trial date, and one month before when there was no response.

DO NOT PUT YOUR PHONE NUMBER DOWN. Here's why: When they have your disclosure ready for you, they call you and tell you to pick it up. That's them just trying to inconvenience you. So don't put your number down. At my initial trial, the prosecutor thought he was a big shot, saying I didn't put my phone number down there, as thats how they notify me to come pick it up. Well, I quickly replied by saying that I had my mailing address there, and if he was lacking information he could have mailed me a letter asking for my phone number, so he could call me to tell me to come get my package. Sounds ridiculous I know.

Because I did not put my phone number down, I did not get my disclosure, the justice agreed that I am entitled to my disclosure, especially after having the decency to make the request twice. (see how your persistence will only help your cause?) So anyway, the date got pushed back a month and 2 weeks, thus pushing it well over a year since the offence date. Why is this a good thing? Keep on reading!


Charter of Rights and freedoms section 11 subsection B.

Don't be afraid. Making use of the charter of rights and freedoms makes Trudeau happy. This section states that we have the right to a fair and speedy trial. Speedy.... ironic I know, but it just means our trial date isn't too far away from the offence date. But don't get confused, if you purposely postpone your court date, you will not be allowed to use this argument, it has to be done through no fault of your own.

Fill out this form: http://www.magma.ca/~fyst/question.htm

And mail it to the two attorney general's listed below, and again to the court house and prosecutor's office.

Make sure you do this at least 15 days before the trial date. I suggest mailing it 1 month before. It looks better =).

Send it through registered mail if you wish, and if you havent received disclosure, now would be a good time to send an additional request. Canada post charges 6.95 for registered mail, sending both letters in one go saves you some money .

Okay, so you've sent all your letters and the trial date is here.

There are a few scenarios that may happen.

1. cop doesn't show up.
2. you didn't get disclosure, when the justice asks, are you ready to proceed, say no, i have not been given disclosure despite making several attempts to get it.

Now, the prosecution will try to pressure you into going ahead with the trial, DO NOT! Say you want to have your disclosure first, so you can take a look at it and be prepare. THIS IS YOUR RIGHT! The justice will agree with you if you made several attempts to get it well before the trial date.

3. you get your disclosure and find something that might help in your defence and you have prepared cross examination questions and you feel confident.
4. the trial date is over a year from the offence date and you will make the case that this infringes your right to a speedy trial (11b).
5. you were not given disclosure, they give you disclosure at the trial, and postpone the trial to another day so that you may have some time to look it over and prepare yourself. You want to have no say in this so that you can say you had no part in delaying the process.

So the 2nd court date arrives, its well over a year now, you sent your constitutional question to the proper places AGAIN (because this is a new trial date now) and you use 11b as an argument.

These are all the positive outcomes of this. Of course there is a chance, disclosure doesnt help you, or your trial date is 6 months away from the offence date, if thats the case, and the charge is serious, I would go seek help from a lawyer. If not, I would just try to bargain with the prosecution and see if they will reduce the charge.

But to me the whole point of this is to beat the ticket completely. You don't want that on your record, you want to keep your insurance premiums down. And by keeping this ticket in the court system for however many months, thats how many months it doesn't count against your insurance, because technically you haven't been found guilty yet.

So, everyone fight your tickets, big or small!

p.s. if there are any typos or mistakes, please pm me so i can fix it, hopefully we can get a sticky on this as there is some good information that a lot of people have been asking me about recently.

And if there are any "you did the crime u do the time" people posting in here, I respect your opinion, but we don't need it in here, and I will ask the moderators to remove it.

thanks.



Source:

http://www.magma.ca/~fyst/

and

My own personal experience

Hi Alevito,

i got this serious ticket actually 4 tickets.. and this is the case. Can you advise?

Hi, my case is like this , I have had insurance and had no issues for 5 years, one day my new car had issues and couldnt get it out, so i took out my old car and put my new cars license plate onto the old car and took it out due to my wife’s specialist appointment which she has to go otherwise she cannot be left without midicine and she did not have midicine as well. so heading on the road police caught me and give me ticket for not having insurance, license plate and sticker and improper seat built for which i have excuse for seatbuilt was broken.. Any advise or anything you can do other than getting a deal in pre trial? please let me know. Thanks. I also called my insurance company in the same time police caught me and changed my insurance to my old car which i was driving.

[motomondo]

Hi Alevito,

i got this serious ticket actually 4 tickets.. and this is the case. Can you advise?

Hi, my case is like this , I have had insurance and had no issues for 5 years, one day my new car had issues and couldnt get it out, so i took out my old car and put my new cars license plate onto the old car and took it out due to my wife’s specialist appointment which she has to go otherwise she cannot be left without midicine and she did not have midicine as well. so heading on the road police caught me and give me ticket for not having insurance, license plate and sticker and improper seat built for which i have excuse for seatbuilt was broken.. Any advise or anything you can do other than getting a deal in pre trial? please let me know. Thanks. I also called my insurance company in the same time police caught me and changed my insurance to my old car which i was driving.


Hello, I think Alvito is not part of this forum anymore.

I would start worrying with the most serious ticket of the 4 that you got. Could you please be more specific and post the total amount of the fine on the insurance ticket, and the exact charge as written on the ticket?

[Nikita]

Hi Alevito,

i got this serious ticket actually 4 tickets.. and this is the case. Can you advise?

Hi, my case is like this , I have had insurance and had no issues for 5 years, one day my new car had issues and couldnt get it out, so i took out my old car and put my new cars license plate onto the old car and took it out due to my wife’s specialist appointment which she has to go otherwise she cannot be left without midicine and she did not have midicine as well. so heading on the road police caught me and give me ticket for not having insurance, license plate and sticker and improper seat built for which i have excuse for seatbuilt was broken.. Any advise or anything you can do other than getting a deal in pre trial? please let me know. Thanks. I also called my insurance company in the same time police caught me and changed my insurance to my old car which i was driving.

C'mon dude, you have to know that your seatbelt being broken is not a defence!

[puminghi]

C'mon dude, you have to know that your seatbelt being broken is not a defence!

Yeah, that I understood is not a good reason for seat built. But, the other tickets. I will come back with the exact law numbers I have broken.. I donno nothing about laws.. I will come back with exact ones..

[Whitedart]

I would start worrying with the most serious ticket of the 4 that you got. Could you please be more specific and post the total amount of the fine on the insurance ticket, and the exact charge as written on the ticket?

He started a new thread on the 17th about it here:
http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=659747

And another here today:
http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=664924

[selpats]

Hi Alevito,

i got this serious ticket actually 4 tickets.. and this is the case. Can you advise?

Hi, my case is like this , I have had insurance and had no issues for 5 years, one day my new car had issues and couldnt get it out, so i took out my old car and put my new cars license plate onto the old car and took it out due to my wife’s specialist appointment which she has to go otherwise she cannot be left without midicine and she did not have midicine as well. so heading on the road police caught me and give me ticket for not having insurance, license plate and sticker and improper seat built for which i have excuse for seatbuilt was broken.. Any advise or anything you can do other than getting a deal in pre trial? please let me know. Thanks. I also called my insurance company in the same time police caught me and changed my insurance to my old car which i was driving.

Ignorance is no defense, you are going to pay for your stupidity.

They should suspend your license while they are at it, it's scary to think that there are people like you behind the wheel of a car. :mad:

[pacman99]

I received a ticket back in May for speeding 73 in a 50 zone. I asked for a court date to fight the ticket but I have yet to receive one. Is it normal to not receive a Toronto court date until much later after the offense?

Also, I've been waiting for the court date to ask for disclosure. Should I ask for disclosure anyways even if my date hasn't been set yet?

[dash riprock]

Hi Alevito,

i got this serious ticket actually 4 tickets.. and this is the case. Can you advise?

Hi, my case is like this , I have had insurance and had no issues for 5 years, one day my new car had issues and couldnt get it out, so i took out my old car and put my new cars license plate onto the old car and took it out due to my wife’s specialist appointment which she has to go otherwise she cannot be left without midicine and she did not have midicine as well. so heading on the road police caught me and give me ticket for not having insurance, license plate and sticker and improper seat built for which i have excuse for seatbuilt was broken.. Any advise or anything you can do other than getting a deal in pre trial? please let me know. Thanks. I also called my insurance company in the same time police caught me and changed my insurance to my old car which i was driving.


One afternoon I was drivng from saskatoon to regina in a rented park ave., late for a meeting I was going 160, looked up and saw a cop coming the other way start to slow down to cross the median. I quickly slowed down and pulled over even before the cop was heading south. She gave me ticket for $260. Which I paid because I knowingly broke the law. This concept of paying for your mistakes, intentional or other, is foreign for a lot of you apparently.

[65505201]

One afternoon I was drivng from saskatoon to regina in a rented park ave., late for a meeting I was going 160, looked up and saw a cop coming the other way start to slow down to cross the median. I quickly slowed down and pulled over even before the cop was heading south. She gave me ticket for $260. Which I paid because I knowingly broke the law. This concept of paying for your mistakes, intentional or other, is foreign for a lot of you apparently.

Hypocrisy is a concept foreign to you apparently. If the cop wasn't there, does it still count as a "mistake"? Would you have marched into the police precinct and confessed your crime? Just because you paid your ticket willingly doesn't make you any more responsible than the person that chooses to fight. The only person that is qualified to stand on that soapbox either:

1. Never breaks any laws.
2. Confesses to the police everytime he/she does.

As I see it, no one is qualified.

[iluvmikeharris]

One afternoon I was drivng from saskatoon to regina in a rented park ave., late for a meeting I was going 160, looked up and saw a cop coming the other way start to slow down to cross the median. I quickly slowed down and pulled over even before the cop was heading south. She gave me ticket for $260. Which I paid because I knowingly broke the law. This concept of paying for your mistakes, intentional or other, is foreign for a lot of you apparently.

Go blog somewhere else son and let people discuss how to save a buck here.

http://www.trevorromain.com/blog/archives/soapbox.jpg

[dash riprock]

Hypocrisy is a concept foreign to you apparently. If the cop wasn't there, does it still count as a "mistake"? Would you have marched into the police precinct and confessed your crime? Just because you paid your ticket willingly doesn't make you any more responsible than the person that chooses to fight. The only person that is qualified to stand on that soapbox either:

1. Never breaks any laws.
2. Confesses to the police everytime he/she does.

As I see it, no one is qualified.


I knowingly, and enjoyably, broke the law . No defence offered. But, there is a big difference, I accepted my behaviour and paid for it. These threads that discuss ways to fight a legitimate fine refuse to accept personal responsibility. If I acted in a way that directly caused another person harm ( ie. little ding in a parking lot) yes, I would ensure that I make contact with the party that was injured. Would you?

[dash riprock]

Go blog somewhere else son and let people discuss how to save a buck here.

http://www.trevorromain.com/blog/archives/soapbox.jpg

I am all for saving a buck, which is what I find great about redflag. But, if saving a buck means screwing someone else, acting unethically, or, not accepting personal responsibilty, then, I am not on the same level as you.

[darkdrgn2k]

Just A note..

FYST is OLD. like 2003

Check out http://www.mytrafficticketdefence.com/


Its got all of fyst and more.. and its a wiki so you can update it as necessary

[pacman99]

I knowingly, and enjoyably, broke the law . No defence offered. But, there is a big difference, I accepted my behaviour and paid for it. These threads that discuss ways to fight a legitimate fine refuse to accept personal responsibility. If I acted in a way that directly caused another person harm ( ie. little ding in a parking lot) yes, I would ensure that I make contact with the party that was injured. Would you?

Maybe you'd feel different if you got 2-3 demerit points cut off each time you're caught for going 20 over the speed limit. Or if your insurance company starts using speeding tickets as an excuse to raise your insurance. Thanks to God I've never been in an accident nor have I claimed anything from my insurance but they still raised rates last year because apparently my type of car got into more collisions. Imagine what they'll do if I plead guilty and get demerit points cut off! This is why we need to fight.

I have no issue paying the fine because I was wrong but I don't agree with taking off demerit points for something like this, especially when I drive at a speed most motorists go at here in the GTA.

[65505201]

I knowingly, and enjoyably, broke the law . No defence offered. But, there is a big difference, I accepted my behaviour and paid for it. These threads that discuss ways to fight a legitimate fine refuse to accept personal responsibility. If I acted in a way that directly caused another person harm ( ie. little ding in a parking lot) yes, I would ensure that I make contact with the party that was injured. Would you?

Personal responsibility means doing the 'right' thing even when no one is around, not simply paying for it when you get caught. Why do we speed? Because we think the limits are bull. Why do we contest the ticket? The same reason we sped in the first place - because the limits are bull.

Would you praise a criminal for being personally responsible if he/she pled guilty after being caught vs. turning themselves in?

As for direct harm, how is dinging someone else's car (actual damage) comparable to speeding (potential damage) - especially when it's usually some other behavior (not checking blind spots, dangerous maneuvers, etc.) that actually caused the accident?

Using your example, would you contact the police every time you speed so that they can write you a ticket?

[iluvmikeharris]

I am all for saving a buck, which is what I find great about redflag. But, if saving a buck means screwing someone else, acting unethically, or, not accepting personal responsibilty, then, I am not on the same level as you.

That's quite a spin on making the Crown prove it's case. I guess in your world the cops should be judge, jury and executioner. Maybe you should move to the United States - the Patriot Act sounds right up your alley.

[dash riprock]

That's quite a spin on making the Crown prove it's case. I guess in your world the cops should be judge, jury and executioner. Maybe you should move to the United States - the Patriot Act sounds right up your alley.

Simple question. Were you wrong? If so, man up and pay.

[dash riprock]

Personal responsibility means doing the 'right' thing even when no one is around, not simply paying for it when you get caught. Why do we speed? Because we think the limits are bull. Why do we contest the ticket? The same reason we sped in the first place - because the limits are bull.

Would you praise a criminal for being personally responsible if he/she pled guilty after being caught vs. turning themselves in?

As for direct harm, how is dinging someone else's car (actual damage) comparable to speeding (potential damage) - especially when it's usually some other behavior (not checking blind spots, dangerous maneuvers, etc.) that actually caused the accident?

Using your example, would you contact the police every time you speed so that they can write you a ticket?


The difference is with the ding I have caused damage. Speeding has the potential to increase the probability of damage to others.

And no I do not "turn myself in" after exceeding the speed limit, or, come forward if the parking meter has expired and pay a fine. However, if caught I will pay.

[Nikita]

Simple question. Were you wrong? If so, man up and pay.

So you're only wrong if you get caught? Ethically speaking, that is a ridiculous spin. If you say you should 'man up' and pay when you know you're wrong, ethically, getting caught or not, you're still wrong. Not getting caught doesn't change the nature of the act from wrong to right. By your own logic, if you're in the wrong you should 'man up', report yourself, get your ticket and pay it. Otherwise, yeah, you're a hypocrite.

[Allstarplaya546]

Nice thread, I totally agree with fighting every ticket! Theres nothing to lose when going to court, and you got everything to gain (squashing the ticket)!

[pintobean]

Simple question. Were you wrong? If so, man up and pay.


So you're only wrong if you get caught? Ethically speaking, that is a ridiculous spin. If you say you should 'man up' and pay when you know you're wrong, ethically, getting caught or not, you're still wrong. Not getting caught doesn't change the nature of the act from wrong to right. By your own logic, if you're in the wrong you should 'man up', report yourself, get your ticket and pay it. Otherwise, yeah, you're a hypocrite.

-1 to dash riprock
+1 to Nikita

It really irritates me when people think you need to get caught in order to "do the right thing". If you're so hell-bent on "doing the right thing", then you'd confess your guilt regardless of whether you were caught or not.

I will now dust off a post I made way back in September of 2006. I hope it helps you "be a man" dash riprock :arrowd:


...the next time you're driving and you look down at your speedometer and realize that you were going over the speed limit please "be a man and accept responsibility for your actions". Kindly head to your nearest post office and mail a cheque for the appropriate amount to "Ontario Court of Justice Provincial Offences Office".

15 km/h over the limit = $52.50
16 km/h over the limit = $55.00
17 km/h over the limit = $57.50
18 km/h over the limit = $60.00
19 km/h over the limit = $62.50
20 km/h over the limit = $95.00
21 km/h over the limit = $103.75
22 km/h over the limit = $107.50
23 km/h over the limit = $111.25
24 km/h over the limit = $115.00
25 km/h over the limit = $118.75
26 km/h over the limit = $122.50
27 km/h over the limit = $131.25
28 km/h over the limit = $135.00
29 km/h over the limit = $138.75
30 km/h over the limit = $220.00
31 km/h over the limit = $226.00
32 km/h over the limit = $232.00
33 km/h over the limit = $238.00
34 km/h over the limit = $259.00
35 km/h over the limit = $265.00
36 km/h over the limit = $271.00
37 km/h over the limit = $277.00
38 km/h over the limit = $283.00
39 km/h over the limit = $289.00
40 km/h over the limit = $295.00
41 km/h over the limit = $301.00
42 km/h over the limit = $317.00
43 km/h over the limit = $323.00
44 km/h over the limit = $329.00
45 km/h over the limit = $335.00
46 km/h over the limit = $341.00
47 km/h over the limit = $347.00
48 km/h over the limit = $353.00
49 km/h over the limit = $359.00
50 km/h over the limit or more = go to court and the judge sets the fine

And if you're really a man feel free to call your insurance company too and tell them about it.

[pfdude]

I fought my ticket and won. The officer didn't feel the need to show up ;)

[iluvmikeharris]

Simple question. Were you wrong? If so, man up and pay.

Let me think about that for a minute. Okay, I've thought about it: NO!

[selpats]

Nice thread, I totally agree with fighting every ticket! Theres nothing to lose when going to court, and you got everything to gain (squashing the ticket)!

Of course!

Why take responsibility for your actions?! How silly! :lol:

[tjayl]

So you're only wrong if you get caught? Ethically speaking, that is a ridiculous spin. If you say you should 'man up' and pay when you know you're wrong, ethically, getting caught or not, you're still wrong. Not getting caught doesn't change the nature of the act from wrong to right. By your own logic, if you're in the wrong you should 'man up', report yourself, get your ticket and pay it. Otherwise, yeah, you're a hypocrite.

I think everyone that speeds knows they are doing something wrong. It's just some accept the consequences that come with it should they get caught, and some choose not to.

If I was to condemn people for speeding then I would be a hypocrite. I'm condemning not being responsible when you are caught and know you were doing something wrong, even if you don't believe in the law.

[iluvmikeharris]

I think everyone that speeds knows they are doing something wrong. It's just some accept the consequences that come with it should they get caught, and some choose not to.

If I was to condemn people for speeding then I would be a hypocrite. I'm condemning not being responsible when you are caught and know you were doing something wrong, even if you don't believe in the law.

I'm more than willing to pay the fine if the crown is successful in proving their case beyond all reasonable doubt.

[tjayl]

I'm more than willing to pay the fine if the crown is successful in proving their case beyond all reasonable doubt.

I know when I'm speeding, and can accept paying the fine without wasting time and money to prove it. If I really thought I was undeserving of the fine, I'd be the first in line to fight it.

I have a feeling your next argument will be that you feel undeserving of the fine, because limits are too low. Well, that's great, but the fact is the limits are what they are right now. So the simple trick is to abide close enough to them to stay unnoticed. People bring up cash grab, and BS tickets etc etc because they believe the limits are unreasonably slow, so here's a question. If the speed limits were moved up to what you feel is reasonable, would you still fight tickets?

[kneevase]

I think everyone that speeds knows they are doing something wrong. It's just some accept the consequences that come with it should they get caught, and some choose not to.

If I was to condemn people for speeding then I would be a hypocrite. I'm condemning not being responsible when you are caught and know you were doing something wrong, even if you don't believe in the law.

Why on earth would you describe it as, "doing something wrong?" The implication is that you've done something unethical or immoral which is complete nonsense. If you've exceeded the speed limit, at most you've done something illegal.

If you've done something illegal, there are remedies for the crown if they catch you. First the crown must accuse you of doing something illegal, and then the crown must prove it. That is the crown's obligation and that is your right.

Forget all this nonsense about "taking personal responsibility" as if you've done some terrible deed that will prevent you from going to heaven!

Damn, some people are high and mighty!

[Whitedart]

I have a feeling your next argument will be that you feel undeserving of the fine, because limits are too low. Well, that's great, but the fact is the limits are what they are right now. So the simple trick is to abide close enough to them to stay unnoticed. People bring up cash grab, and BS tickets etc etc because they believe the limits are unreasonably slow, so here's a question. If the speed limits were moved up to what you feel is reasonable, would you still fight tickets?

If limits were increased, they would still present the same argument. They would receive demerit points, a financial penalty, and possible insurance increase.

There is already a tolerance of about 15k over the limit given existing speeds that is 30% over the limit in a 50k zone or 15% over the limit in a 100k zone.

But other jurisdictions with higher limits have an almost zero tolerance policy.
Ask any Canadian caught speeding in the US.

[selpats]

Why on earth would you describe it as, "doing something wrong?" The implication is that you've done something unethical or immoral which is complete nonsense. If you've exceeded the speed limit, at most you've done something illegal.

If you've done something illegal, there are remedies for the crown if they catch you. First the crown must accuse you of doing something illegal, and then the crown must prove it. That is the crown's obligation and that is your right.

Forget all this nonsense about "taking personal responsibility" as if you've done some terrible deed that will prevent you from going to heaven!

Damn, some people are high and mighty!

People like you are pathetic. You have some really messed up values. You don't take responsibility for anything in your life do you? It's always the other persons fault isn't it? One day you will grow up and have a better understanding of things.

[tjayl]

Why on earth would you describe it as, "doing something wrong?" The implication is that you've done something unethical or immoral which is complete nonsense. If you've exceeded the speed limit, at most you've done something illegal.

If you've done something illegal, there are remedies for the crown if they catch you. First the crown must accuse you of doing something illegal, and then the crown must prove it. That is the crown's obligation and that is your right.

Forget all this nonsense about "taking personal responsibility" as if you've done some terrible deed that will prevent you from going to heaven!

Damn, some people are high and mighty!

You do realize that wrong in the moral/ethical sense is only one definition of the word? Same with responsibility, not always a moral issue. It's dealing with consequences of actions.

I simply stated my opinion on the subject, and you took it as some sort of moral stance. I am trying to understand where people are coming from on this. I don't understand the need to have the case proved if a person knows they are not in the right (ie speeding). All I ever hear for reasons is cash grab, BS, it's my right to fight it, my insurance will go up if I don't fight it...not a sound explanation why they don't just drive a few km/h slower, or understand the risks of speeding are a ticket.

[Allstarplaya546]

Of course!

Why take responsibility for your actions?! How silly! :lol:

Thats exactly what I'm saying. I'm glad you agree! :lol:

[watching]

I'm more than willing to pay the fine if the crown is successful in proving their case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Like you'd have a choice. :lol:

I love how people will say "oh I have nothing to lose by taking a traffic ticket to court" yada yada. Hello who pays all those expenses, judge, crown attorney, court staff, building maintenance. Why gee that must be US THE TAXPAYER, so it stands to reason that contrary to what the shirkers claim, taxpayer dollars are being wasted on people who know they've been speeding yet want to get out of the responsibility of being caught.

[65505201]

People like you are pathetic. You have some really messed up values. You don't take responsibility for anything in your life do you? It's always the other persons fault isn't it? One day you will grow up and have a better understanding of things.

People like you are idiots. Just because it's written in law it's automatically right? Just because we know we were breaking the law, we're not allowed to challenge the system by making the crown prove their case?

One day you will grow up and have a better understanding that the government isn't always right, nor does it always act in your best interest, nor does it always follow the rules - and that making the government follow its own rules (proving their case) is a perfectly valid method of challenging the government.

I remember off the back of my head that you (or some other forum member with your views) is/was a member of the military. If that is so, I perfectly understand why questioning authority seems like such a foreign concept to you.


Like you'd have a choice. :lol:

I love how people will say "oh I have nothing to lose by taking a traffic ticket to court" yada yada. Hello who pays all those expenses, judge, crown attorney, court staff, building maintenance. Why gee that must be US THE TAXPAYER, so it stands to reason that contrary to what the shirkers claim, taxpayer dollars are being wasted on people who know they've been speeding yet want to get out of the responsibility of being caught.

Considering how few people actually challenge their tickets, tickets generate far more revenue than it costs for the judge, officers, etc. If we get to the point where enough people challenge their tickets to actually *cost* taxpayers money, then we may finally debate the merits of hiding cops behind bridges.

Funny...by saying "costing us the taxpayer," you're making it seem like taxpayers are entitled to fleecing money from speeders. It's like Fantino....we need $2mil for a shiny new helicopter so let's imposed ridiculous fines on speeders to pay for it. :rolleyes: Oh oh, while we're at it, why don't we fine all jaywalkers $1000 to help balance the city budget? :rolleyes: It's for the safety of pedestrians, ya.....:rolleyes:



You do realize that wrong in the moral/ethical sense is only one definition of the word? Same with responsibility, not always a moral issue. It's dealing with consequences of actions.

...

I don't understand the need to have the case proved if a person knows they are not in the right (ie speeding).


We *are* dealing with the consequences of our actions...by taking time off work/school to deal with it in court. As for the need...if you know the speed limits are baloney (for safety reasons), and you willingly speed, I don't understand why one wouldn't go one step further and defend that stance in court.

By intentionally speeding (at a speed you believe to be safe) and then coughing up cash for speeding tickets...you're pussying out. You're not standing up for your beliefs. You can justify it all you want. It's written in the law (what is 'right'? if it means following engineering reports, the law isn't 'right')...I don't want to waste taxpayer money...I don't have the time....I respect the officer's time...

Whatever. You're pussying out.

Pussy.

(BTW, if we truly believe we were doing something dangerous, we wouldn't be here asking for ticket advice. We're here because we believe the law is baloney)

[iluvmikeharris]

Like you'd have a choice. :lol:

I love how people will say "oh I have nothing to lose by taking a traffic ticket to court" yada yada. Hello who pays all those expenses, judge, crown attorney, court staff, building maintenance. Why gee that must be US THE TAXPAYER, so it stands to reason that contrary to what the shirkers claim, taxpayer dollars are being wasted on people who know they've been speeding yet want to get out of the responsibility of being caught.

what you see as a waste is a small price to keep the crown on side and not acting as judge, jury and executioner. the fact that it grinds your gears only adds to the motivation to fight the ticket :D

using your logic, there should be no court system and no opportunity to defend yourself for any charge since you say there is a QUOTE "responsibility of being caught".

[tjayl]

We *are* dealing with the consequences of our actions...by taking time off work/school to deal with it in court. As for the need...if you know the speed limits are baloney (for safety reasons), and you willingly speed, I don't understand why one wouldn't go one step further and defend that stance in court.

By intentionally speeding (at a speed you believe to be safe) and then coughing up cash for speeding tickets...you're pussying out. You're not standing up for your beliefs. You can justify it all you want. It's written in the law (what is 'right'? if it means following engineering reports, the law isn't 'right')...I don't want to waste taxpayer money...I don't have the time....I respect the officer's time...

Whatever. You're pussying out.

Pussy.

(BTW, if we truly believe we were doing something dangerous, we wouldn't be here asking for ticket advice. We're here because we believe the law is baloney)

I believe the speed limits are set low because if they were higher, you'd get people going 15-20 above the new limits. Perfect or not, the limits are there. I know they aren't going to change, and that's probably a good thing based on how badly I see people driving on a day to day basis. I drive responsibly and I don't get tickets, so I'd say I'm standing up for my beliefs quite well. According to your little rant, unless you are ripping around, getting tickets, you aren't standing up for your beliefs.

By the way, why the need for name calling? I've been very civil in presenting my opinion. Most mature people are able to hold a civil debate without insulting people.

[motomondo]

what you see as a waste is a small price to keep the crown on side and not acting as judge, jury and executioner. the fact that it grinds your gears only adds to the motivation to fight the ticket :D

using your logic, there should be no court system and no opportunity to defend yourself for any charge since you say there is a QUOTE "responsibility of being caught".

Furthermore... According to his logic, there should be no court system because... it is costing us, taxpayers, money.
God forbids we "waste" money on due process .... :rolleyes:

[selpats]

People like you are idiots. Just because it's written in law it's automatically right? Just because we know we were breaking the law, we're not allowed to challenge the system by making the crown prove their case?

One day you will grow up and have a better understanding that the government isn't always right, nor does it always act in your best interest, nor does it always follow the rules - and that making the government follow its own rules (proving their case) is a perfectly valid method of challenging the government.

I remember off the back of my head that you (or some other forum member with your views) is/was a member of the military. If that is so, I perfectly understand why questioning authority seems like such a foreign concept to you.

I have a much better understanding how government "works" than you seem to think. You just twist my words however you want, it's ok, everything you say is based on assumptions. If you want to break the law knowingly and then challenge a charge in court that is your right. That's a stupid thing to do in my opinion but it sounds like it would be right up your alley.

Best of luck to you with life, it doesn't sound like you will make it far with that piss-poor attitude of yours! :lol:

No, I am not, nor have I been in the military.

[Nikita]

I think everyone that speeds knows they are doing something wrong. It's just some accept the consequences that come with it should they get caught, and some choose not to.

If I was to condemn people for speeding then I would be a hypocrite. I'm condemning not being responsible when you are caught and know you were doing something wrong, even if you don't believe in the law.


Why on earth would you describe it as, "doing something wrong?" The implication is that you've done something unethical or immoral which is complete nonsense. If you've exceeded the speed limit, at most you've done something illegal.

If you've done something illegal, there are remedies for the crown if they catch you. First the crown must accuse you of doing something illegal, and then the crown must prove it. That is the crown's obligation and that is your right.

Forget all this nonsense about "taking personal responsibility" as if you've done some terrible deed that will prevent you from going to heaven!

Damn, some people are high and mighty!


People like you are pathetic. You have some really messed up values. You don't take responsibility for anything in your life do you? It's always the other persons fault isn't it? One day you will grow up and have a better understanding of things.

What exactly do you find pathetic about kneevase's post? He/she is absolutely correct in seeing the distinction between 'illegal' and 'immoral'. Many many laws have nothing to do with morality...if you believe that only 'immoral' conduct is 'illegal', you are pathetic. How is speeding 'immoral'? It's not, people have determined for whatever reason that a certain speed is appropriate and have therefore made that law. I doubt even legislators would claim speed limits are there to curb immorality. How can you fail to see the difference between 'immoral' and 'illegal'?

His/her second paragraph is completely accurate. If you feel otherwise, please enlighten us as to what you find inaccurate about it. If you're going to call someone pathetic for their post, you might want to back that up with explaining what about the post is so wrong as to make it 'pathetic'.

He/she said nothing about blaming others or about not taking responsibility, every sentence is a statement of fact, so please, again, tell us what you find pathetic about it.


Furthermore... According to his logic, there should be no court system because... it is costing us, taxpayers, money.
God forbids we "waste" money on due process .... :rolleyes:

Bingo! There are countries that only wish their government would spend their tax dollars on a system that grants due process. Our system is so taken for granted that we can't even appreciate what others would and have died for.

[selpats]

What exactly do you find pathetic about kneevase's post? He/she is absolutely correct in seeing the distinction between 'illegal' and 'immoral'. Many many laws have nothing to do with morality...if you believe that only 'immoral' conduct is 'illegal', you are pathetic. How is speeding 'immoral'? It's not, people have determined for whatever reason that a certain speed is appropriate and have therefore made that law. I doubt even legislators would claim speed limits are there to curb immorality. How can you fail to see the difference between 'immoral' and 'illegal'?

His/her second paragraph is completely accurate. If you feel otherwise, please enlighten us as to what you find inaccurate about it. If you're going to call someone pathetic for their post, you might want to back that up with explaining what about the post is so wrong as to make it 'pathetic'.

He/she said nothing about blaming others or about not taking responsibility, every sentence is a statement of fact, so please, again, tell us what you find pathetic about it.




The thing I find "pathetic" is the fact that I never said anything about morals, those words were put into my mouth. Where did I say that before he/she started going off on me about "morals/laws"? It's all hear in black & white, read it for yourself. I didn't make one comment about the "morality" of speeding.

I realize you "guys" are just flexing your 'e-penises' to makes yourselves feel big, important and "intelligent". If you were to stop making assumptions about what I and others believe, a meaningful discussion might happen here. Without that, it is just a pissing match...

[Shaner]

I really think the system needs to be changed. Like some on here have said, there's absolutely no reason not to fight your tickets. That's a disaster for a system that costs us a ton of money. People who knowingly broke the law are fighting a ticket not because it's the right thing to do, not because they believe in due process (so stop lying to us ok, because your due process argument is BS!), not because they aren't sure whether they are guilty or not, and definitely not because they are trying to change the laws. People are fighting tickets simply to save money (in most cases, obviously there are always exceptions).

That needs to be changed. Court should be a place where people go when they are actually innocent or if they truly aren't sure whether or not they did break the law. It shouldn't be a place to go to try and save money.

I think speeding fines should be doubled or tripled with a clause that a guilty plea will cut the fine in half. The crown should not have the discretion to bargain on traffic offences. Either it's a guilty plea which cuts the fine in half (no more, no less), or it goes to trial. Also, cops who don't show up to court without a valid reason should be reprimanded by their supervisors. Courts should also attempt to work more with the various police organizations to ensure that officers aren't on vacation or on their rest days on the day of the trial, whenever possible.

This would be a much more efficient system IMO. There would be consequences for wasting the courts time and taxpayers money, but in this case it would be perfectly legal as the fine wouldn't be any higher by pleading not guilty, it would simply be cut in half for pleading guilty.

And this is coming from someone that speeds on a regular basis. I have a heavy foot and never drive the speed limit. I've been lucky that I haven't been caught other than one time. So it's not like I'm suggesting this reform only because I don't speed, because that's not true at all.

I just think something needs to change. Too much of the courts resources are being wasted on trying to prosecute people who know damn well they are guilty, but are simply trying to save a few bucks. That is NOT what due process is about, that is not what soldiers lost their lives for and that is not what the court system is intended to be used for.

[selpats]

I really think the system needs to be changed. Like some on here have said, there's absolutely no reason not to fight your tickets. That's a disaster for a system that costs us a ton of money. People who knowingly broke the law are fighting a ticket not because it's the right thing to do, not because they believe in due process (so stop lying to us ok, because your due process argument is BS!), not because they aren't sure whether they are guilty or not, and definitely not because they are trying to change the laws. People are fighting tickets simply to save money (in most cases, obviously there are always exceptions).

That needs to be changed. Court should be a place where people go when they are actually innocent or if they truly aren't sure whether or not they did break the law. It shouldn't be a place to go to try and save money.

I think speeding fines should be doubled or tripled with a clause that a guilty plea will cut the fine in half. The crown should not have the discretion to bargain on traffic offences. Either it's a guilty plea which cuts the fine in half (no more, no less), or it goes to trial. Also, cops who don't show up to court without a valid reason should be reprimanded by their supervisors. Courts should also attempt to work more with the various police organizations to ensure that officers aren't on vacation or on their rest days on the day of the trial, whenever possible.

This would be a much more efficient system IMO. There would be consequences for wasting the courts time and taxpayers money, but in this case it would be perfectly legal as the fine wouldn't be any higher by pleading not guilty, it would simply be cut in half for pleading guilty.

And this is coming from someone that speeds on a regular basis. I have a heavy foot and never drive the speed limit. I've been lucky that I haven't been caught other than one time. So it's not like I'm suggesting this reform only because I don't speed, because that's not true at all.

I just think something needs to change. Too much of the courts resources are being wasted on trying to prosecute people who know damn well they are guilty, but are simply trying to save a few bucks. That is NOT what due process is about, that is not what soldiers lost their lives for and that is not what the court system is intended to be used for.

Nicely thought out and well said. I can agree with you here 100%. The tough part is change.

[Nikita]

The thing I find "pathetic" is the fact that I never said anything about morals, those words were put into my mouth. Where did I say that before he/she started going off on me about "morals/laws"? It's all hear in black & white, read it for yourself. I didn't make one comment about the "morality" of speeding.

I realize you "guys" are just flexing your 'e-penises' to makes yourselves feel big, important and "intelligent". If you were to stop making assumptions about what I and others believe, a meaningful discussion might happen here. Without that, it is just a pissing match...

First of all, I'm a woman so no I'm not flexing any kind of penis, e- or otherwise. Secondly, you called 'pathetic' a post that made the distinction between 'illegal' and 'immoral', without explaining what you found pathetic about it. As that was the gist of the post you responded to, by implication you seemed to be referring to that distinction. Which is why I asked what you found 'pathetic' about that post. And which you still haven't answered.

When you use phrases like "you know you were wrong so man up and pay the fine" or some variation of that which you use repeatedly in this forum, how do you expect others to interpret the word 'wrong'. Right and wrong are moral/ethical terms, so even if you've never used the words 'moral' or 'ethical', the implication is clear and there's absolutely nothing pathetic about people interpreting it that way and taking issue with it.


I really think the system needs to be changed. Like some on here have said, there's absolutely no reason not to fight your tickets. That's a disaster for a system that costs us a ton of money. People who knowingly broke the law are fighting a ticket not because it's the right thing to do, not because they believe in due process (so stop lying to us ok, because your due process argument is BS!), not because they aren't sure whether they are guilty or not, and definitely not because they are trying to change the laws. People are fighting tickets simply to save money (in most cases, obviously there are always exceptions).

<snip>

I just think something needs to change. Too much of the courts resources are being wasted on trying to prosecute people who know damn well they are guilty, but are simply trying to save a few bucks. That is NOT what due process is about, that is not what soldiers lost their lives for and that is not what the court system is intended to be used for.

That's quite a broad statement. Why do you find it so hard to believe that, guilty or not, there are a lot of people who actually believe in due process? I've never had a ticket in my life (except for a jaywalking ticket when I was 16...yes I opted for a trial, and yes I was successful) yet you know damned well how strongly I believe in due process...for everyone. There's nothing BS about it, there's nothing to be gained by me in believing it, it's a core value in our system that differentiates us from dictatorships and the likes. Again, why do you find it so hard to believe that people appreciate and use that concept to their advantage. And yes, IMO those values, due process most importantly are exactly what wars have been fought to achieve.

[motomondo]

Nicely thought out and well said. I can agree with you here 100%. The tough part is change.

Are you thinking about change? What about this?

Traffic tickets are not used by Insurance Co's as an excuse to increase rates disproportionally.

Long story short - When I got to Canada, nobody told me about traffic tickets and their brutal impact on insurance. So, I got my first (minor speeding) ticket... and I mailed them a cheque. 2.5 years later, got another minor speed ticket, and mailed them another cheque. Shortly after that, my insurance went up more than 40% because of these 2 minor tickets (and my short insurance history in Canada). I paid through the nose for the following 5 years before my insurance came down again!!!! It was cruel and unusual punishment applied to my finances – to my whole life, actually.


...

...


Then, I got my 3rd ticket. Do you think I paid for it right away? No way! I went to court, and won

And that’s why people go to court. They don’t want to suddenly pay 40% more in insurance

[rems]

Are you thinking about change? What about this?

Traffic tickets are not used by Insurance Co's as an excuse to increase rates disproportionally.


You know, there is a correlation between having a conviction and the cost to an insurance company for that risk. Why do you think some companies out there offer a conviction free discount...

[motomondo]

You know, there is a correlation between having a conviction and the cost to an insurance company for that risk. Why do you think some companies out there offer a conviction free discount...

Is there a correlation between tickets and claims (claim = an accident actually happend)?

Or is it just the risk (the insurance co is taking a risk - and requires to make a profit for doing so)?

Further, is there a correlation between operators with a single ticket and claims?

As enforcement increases under the current administration (Fantino era), I expect most drivers will soon have at least one ticket...

[rems]

Is there a correlation between tickets and claims (claim = an accident actually happend)?

Or is it just the risk (the insurance co is taking a risk - and requires to make a profit for doing so)?

Further, is there a correlation between operators with a single ticket and claims?

As enforcement increases under the current administration (Fantino era), I expect most drivers will soon have at least one ticket...

yes that is what I was referring to when I say the cost for the insurer for that risk...obviously individually you'll find cases where they have a ticket and no claims. And conversely, a claim and no prior tickets. But as a whole, yes there is a correlation.

[65505201]

I believe the speed limits are set low because if they were higher, you'd get people going 15-20 above the new limits. Perfect or not, the limits are there. I know they aren't going to change, and that's probably a good thing based on how badly I see people driving on a day to day basis. I drive responsibly and I don't get tickets, so I'd say I'm standing up for my beliefs quite well. According to your little rant, unless you are ripping around, getting tickets, you aren't standing up for your beliefs.


You drive responsibly and you don't get tickets because you haven't been busted yet, not because you're following the law at all times.

I drive responsibly (safely) as well, but above the speed limit. When I get busted, I stand up for my beliefs and challenge the charge in court.



By the way, why the need for name calling? I've been very civil in presenting my opinion. Most mature people are able to hold a civil debate without insulting people.

As for the name calling, that was directed at Selpats for calling us pathetic. It's a long simmering debate (through various other threads) where I'm just about done with his/her hypocrisy/idiocy/blind faith in the government.


The thing I find "pathetic" is the fact that I never said anything about morals, those words were put into my mouth. Where did I say that before he/she started going off on me about "morals/laws"? It's all hear in black & white, read it for yourself. I didn't make one comment about the "morality" of speeding.




People like you are pathetic. You have some really messed up values. You don't take responsibility for anything in your life do you? It's always the other persons fault isn't it? One day you will grow up and have a better understanding of things.


Not quite about the morality of speeding, but rather the morality of fighting a speeding ticket. If "values" isn't related to "morals/laws"...then, heh. :rolleyes:



I just think something needs to change. Too much of the courts resources are being wasted on trying to prosecute people who know damn well they are guilty, but are simply trying to save a few bucks. That is NOT what due process is about, that is not what soldiers lost their lives for and that is not what the court system is intended to be used for.

*shrug* have stupid laws in place and we'll fight it. As for saving money, many people will plead to a lesser fine in court, which takes virtually no time at all. Those who actually prepare and fight (that actually takes court time) are NOT saving money, even when taking into account insurance increases. It takes a lot of time to properly prepare for a case.



That's a disaster for a system that costs us a ton of money

I *highly* doubt the system is losing money from the ticket racket. Sure, they may make *less* of a profit, but if municipalities are relying on fines to balance their books and actually feel entitled to that money, there is some serious conflict of interest here.



Best of luck to you with life, it doesn't sound like you will make it far with that piss-poor attitude of yours!


Life is going pretty good. May have been farther along if I grabbed my ankles more often, but I can stand tall knowing that I blaze my own path and don't bow blindly to authority.

[ottawasportsfan2010]

You drive responsibly and you don't get tickets because you haven't been busted yet, not because you're following the law at all times.

I drive responsibly (safely) as well, but above the speed limit. When I get busted, I stand up for my beliefs and challenge the charge in court.



As for the name calling, that was directed at Selpats for calling us pathetic. It's a long simmering debate (through various other threads) where I'm just about done with his/her hypocrisy/idiocy/blind faith in the government.





Not quite about the morality of speeding, but rather the morality of fighting a speeding ticket. If "values" isn't related to "morals/laws"...then, heh. :rolleyes:


*shrug* have stupid laws in place and we'll fight it. As for saving money, many people will plead to a lesser fine in court, which takes virtually no time at all. Those who actually prepare and fight (that actually takes court time) are NOT saving money, even when taking into account insurance increases. It takes a lot of time to properly prepare for a case.



I *highly* doubt the system is losing money from the ticket racket. Sure, they may make *less* of a profit, but if municipalities are relying on fines to balance their books, there is some serious conflict of interest here.

You really think the laws for speeding and drinking and driving are stupid laws.

[tjayl]

Can someone on the fight your tickets side address my question of what they would do if limits were raised? Imagine they are bumped up to where you feel it's reasonable. If you get a valid ticket then (ie you were speeding), would you fight it? This is the part that I don't understand - the need for someone to prove it if you know you were in the wrong (and just so it doesn't come up again I'm using wrong in the non-moral sense). And yes, I realize due process means the case has to be proved against me, but for something like this, it seems like an abuse of the concept.

[Nikita]

Can someone on the fight your tickets side address my question of what they would do if limits were raised? Imagine they are bumped up to where you feel it's reasonable. If you get a valid ticket then (ie you were speeding), would you fight it? This is the part that I don't understand - the need for someone to prove it if you know you were in the wrong (and just so it doesn't come up again I'm using wrong in the non-moral sense). And yes, I realize due process means the case has to be proved against me, but for something like this, it seems like an abuse of the concept.

That sound like a contradiction in terms to me.

[65505201]

You really think the laws for speeding and drinking and driving are stupid laws.

Speeding:
Yes, the current limits (except school zones) and its enforcement is stupid. You'd be hard pressed to prove that speeding *given appropriate conditions* is actually unsafe. Given the right traffic and weather, I don't see how 140-150 is unsafe. Yes, you'll take longer to stop, that's why you have to leave more space between cars and drive predictably. If someone doesn't check their shoulder and gauge the speed of upcoming traffic, they are at fault in my books. (exception being merging lanes where they MUST change lanes)

DnD:
No, not harsh enough. Even if drunk drivers do 20-30 below the limit, their decision making and reaction skills are impaired beyond an acceptable level...not to mention that their driving is unpredictable.



Can someone on the fight your tickets side address my question of what they would do if limits were raised? Imagine they are bumped up to where you feel it's reasonable. If you get a valid ticket then (ie you were speeding), would you fight it?

If the limits were bumped to what I feel is reasonable, I wouldn't exceed it. We don't do limit + 20. We do what we feel is comfortable. We just limit ourselves to limit + 20 to lower the risk of tickets.

Now, everyone's comfort level is different, so limits should be prima facie evidence of unsafe driving - with the court forced to make its case in court. Unfortunately, from my experience, the bar for acceptable scientific proof is set so low it makes me wonder how these judges and officers managed to pass grade 10 science.

If the driver was truly dangerous, the crown will have no problems pursuing the case. (ex. think murder cases are pursued for monetary reasons?)

[fantom]

Got some parking tickets?

Read this...

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2008/10/21/parking-ticket-justice-is-a-coming.aspx

Even in spite of all that, I've submitted about 70-80 parking tickets in the last 3 years that I can remember, and out of that number have been to court disputing them only 3 times, walking out with heavily reduced fines (paying $5-10 instead of $30-60 for spending 5 minutes in court on my lunch hour? wicked!)

[watching]

How many of you think current traffic laws are unfair? ??


Now how many of you are running for office to get those laws changed? 0


Instead, you break the laws you feel are unfair, then whine about getting caught and ticketed. What's wrong with that picture?

[65505201]

How many of you think current traffic laws are unfair? ??


Now how many of you are running for office to get those laws changed? 0


Instead, you break the laws you feel are unfair, then whine about getting caught and ticketed. What's wrong with that picture?

Cost of running for office: 1 year's worth of time/salary - more if you actually get into office (some of us actually have meaningful careers)
Chance of weaning city hall off ticket revenue once you get in: 0.

Cost of fighting speeding ticket: 1 - 3 days
Chance of breaking the system if everyone fights their ticket, forcing cops to spend time on actual crimes: Pretty good.

Seems like a pretty logical choice to me.

[tjayl]

That sound like a contradiction in terms to me.

All I meant was that if I know I was speeding, I don't feel the need to exercise my right to due process. I don't see the point if I'm guilty, and would feel like I was taking advantage of the system to get out of the consequences of my actions. I would take a ticket to court if I know I wasn't breaking any laws, and was ticketed.

[tjayl]

Speeding:
Yes, the current limits (except school zones) and its enforcement is stupid. You'd be hard pressed to prove that speeding *given appropriate conditions* is actually unsafe. Given the right traffic and weather, I don't see how 140-150 is unsafe. Yes, you'll take longer to stop, that's why you have to leave more space between cars and drive predictably. If someone doesn't check their shoulder and gauge the speed of upcoming traffic, they are at fault in my books. (exception being merging lanes where they MUST change lanes)

Now, everyone's comfort level is different, so limits should be prima facie evidence of unsafe driving - with the court forced to make its case in court. Unfortunately, from my experience, the bar for acceptable scientific proof is set so low it makes me wonder how these judges and officers managed to pass grade 10 science.


I agree totally agree that speeding isn't always unsafe, but your second statement above proves why limits are needed. Everyone's comfort level is different. Unfortunately some people are comfortable beyond their skill level. They don't realize they are beyond their abilities, and that's when you get people at the least running off the road, causing minor fender benders or at the worst wrapping their cars around trees, or taking out innocent people minding their own business.
Because of this, limits must be imposed. And they unfortunately have to be set for the lowest common denomenator. Then, for these limits to be effective, they must be enforced. An officer on traffic duty can't tell which drivers are able to handle themselves better than others. And the court shouldn't really be there to administer driving tests to see if maybe you are able to handle yourself at speeds above the limit. They really only have the facts to go by. And that would be above limit = ticket.
So, as long as there is the lowest common denomenator, we are stuck with the system the way it is. It's then up to drivers to make the choice to avoid tickets simply by sticking near the posted limits.

[tjayl]

Chance of breaking the system if everyone fights their ticket, forcing cops to spend time on actual crimes: Pretty good.



I can't believe you actually think that there is no need to police traffic. What would happen if all traffic cops were reasigned to other duties?

[tjayl]

Got some parking tickets?

Read this...

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2008/10/21/parking-ticket-justice-is-a-coming.aspx

Even in spite of all that, I've submitted about 70-80 parking tickets in the last 3 years that I can remember, and out of that number have been to court disputing them only 3 times, walking out with heavily reduced fines (paying $5-10 instead of $30-60 for spending 5 minutes in court on my lunch hour? wicked!)

I think this issue bugs me even more, as parking rules are pretty clear. Especially for private lots. They are a business, and should have the right to collect fees from people using their services.

[watching]

Cost of running for office: 1 year's worth of time/salary - more if you actually get into office (some of us actually have meaningful careers)
Chance of weaning city hall off ticket revenue once you get in: 0.

Cost of fighting speeding ticket: 1 - 3 days
Chance of breaking the system if everyone fights their ticket, forcing cops to spend time on actual crimes: Pretty good.

Seems like a pretty logical choice to me.

So in other words, your apathy trumps your belief that the HTA is wrong, unfair or whatever. I see no logic at all in your comments. I guess you think everyone should break the law whenever they want, and just use the "that law is unfair" excuse as a defense when they're caught?

We're not talking human rights violations here, or police brutality. Speeding tickets and parking tickets aren't issued just for the hell of it, they're written up because the driver has ignored municipal and/or provincial legislation. If you don't like the legislation, breaking the law won't get it changed.

[fantom]

I think this issue bugs me even more, as parking rules are pretty clear. Especially for private lots. They are a business, and should have the right to collect fees from people using their services.

those are actually the only times they'll set up court dates for $30 tickets, to satisfy the private property owners too.. ;}

[Nikita]

So in other words, your apathy trumps your belief that the HTA is wrong, unfair or whatever. I see no logic at all in your comments. I guess you think everyone should break the law whenever they want, and just use the "that law is unfair" excuse as a defense when they're caught?

We're not talking human rights violations here, or police brutality. Speeding tickets and parking tickets aren't issued just for the hell of it, they're written up because the driver has ignored municipal and/or provincial legislation. If you don't like the legislation, breaking the law won't get it changed.

Umm, yes they very often are, you seem to have that 'if the police say it's so, it's so' mentality which is incredibly naive. Numerous tickets, not only speeding tickets, are written up for reasons other than legitimate ones.

And the argument that if you don't think the laws are fair run for office to change them or you have no right complain...crap. It's like the 'if you don't vote, you have no right to complain....again crap. If you pay taxes you have the right to complain...period. I personally don't think breaking the law as a form of protest is effective, but sometimes it is the only way to get to court to challenge the laws.

If one feels the desire to do something proactive to change the laws, there are many many other ways to do that than run for office. Even winning office doesn't guarantee you have the power to change laws....and is kind of overkill to run for office for that one specific reason. And your characterization of not running for office as 'apathetic' is such a stretch as to make your entire position evewn weaker.

[Shaner]

That's quite a broad statement. Why do you find it so hard to believe that, guilty or not, there are a lot of people who actually believe in due process? I've never had a ticket in my life (except for a jaywalking ticket when I was 16...yes I opted for a trial, and yes I was successful) yet you know damned well how strongly I believe in due process...for everyone. There's nothing BS about it, there's nothing to be gained by me in believing it, it's a core value in our system that differentiates us from dictatorships and the likes. Again, why do you find it so hard to believe that people appreciate and use that concept to their advantage. And yes, IMO those values, due process most importantly are exactly what wars have been fought to achieve.

It is a broad statement, but it's true. Hell, most people in this country don't even know what due process means. The only law terms they are familiar with are words they've heard on Law & Order.

I'm not saying there aren't people out there who believe in due process, that's not what I said at all! I also didn't call due process BS. Read that part of my post again and you'll realize I'm specifically targeting your average RFD'er who create posts trying to find a way to beat their speeding tickets. Very few of them would know what due process even is and even fewer are fighting their ticket for a valid reason. Like I already said, they are doing it to save a few dollars, no other reason. In that case, throwing out words like "due process" is BS because they've probably read that term in one of your posts, or one of Alvito's posts and they don't even know what it really means. Due process isn't BS, but them trying to justify fighting the ticket because of due process is BS. They are fighting the ticket to save a few bucks, that's it. That isn't what courts are meant to be used for, never was and never will be.

I just think something needs to give. Not only is there court costs, but quite often the officer who wrote the ticket will be hired for OT just to come in for one or two cases, which might take an hour. That officer is probably making $60 per hour to sit in court while some RFD'er tries to save $50 by challenging the ticket in court. Now once the cases are done, if there's no other work to be done by the officer, he gets to go home, but not before being paid for 4 hours OT. You can't expect a cop (or anyone for that matter) to come into work on their rest day and only get paid for an hour. It's a minimum 4 hours pay. So the costs for the cop to be called in for OT is about $200. Multiply that by how many times it happens across the country, factor in all the other costs, and it's damn expensive. I just don't think that's an efficient system, nor do I think that's what courts are intended to be used for.

[fantom]

Numerous tickets, not only speeding tickets, are written up for reasons other than legitimate ones.

...especially when you've got quotas to meet, like parking ticket officers (in some areas they have to write 150-200 tickets per day) ;)

if I was them, I'd be writing tickets for everything and anything too... hey, your job depends on it.

[65505201]

I agree totally agree that speeding isn't always unsafe, but your second statement above proves why limits are needed. Everyone's comfort level is different. Unfortunately some people are comfortable beyond their skill level. They don't realize they are beyond their abilities, and that's when you get people at the least running off the road, causing minor fender benders or at the worst wrapping their cars around trees, or taking out innocent people minding their own business.
Because of this, limits must be imposed. And they unfortunately have to be set for the lowest common denomenator. Then, for these limits to be effective, they must be enforced. An officer on traffic duty can't tell which drivers are able to handle themselves better than others. And the court shouldn't really be there to administer driving tests to see if maybe you are able to handle yourself at speeds above the limit. They really only have the facts to go by. And that would be above limit = ticket.
So, as long as there is the lowest common denomenator, we are stuck with the system the way it is. It's then up to drivers to make the choice to avoid tickets simply by sticking near the posted limits.

Why should we accept the LCD? Do cops have no discretionary powers? I'm sure they have some since they regularly exceed limits/boundaries themselves. Should the courts not be forced to prove we are actually unsafe?

If you're fine w/ LCD and paying for your tickets, that's your prerogative.


I can't believe you actually think that there is no need to police traffic. What would happen if all traffic cops were reasigned to other duties?

Drives up to the cottage on long weekends would be smooth?

People would be free to drive 130-140, and accidents reduced because the impatient people won't need to weave around blocks of traffic doing 100 (who are only doing 100 because of the blitzes)?

People would be more alert and conscientious of their driving because they are now responsible for their own wellbeing?

Quite frankly, I can think of a million things that cops can better spend their time on than camping on the side of the road and nailing speeders doing 20 over the limit. In fact, less cops on the road means less distractions (when people are pulled over) and more alert driving (as drivers are paying attention to traffic vs. looking for cops)

[tjayl]

Why should we accept the LCD? Do cops have no discretionary powers? I'm sure they have some since they regularly exceed limits/boundaries themselves. Should the courts not be forced to prove we are actually unsafe?

If you're fine w/ LCD and paying for your tickets, that's your prerogative.

As I said before, I'm not sure how you would expect the police to have discretion because of they have no way of proving a driver's abilities on the spot, or by looking at them. They have to assume everyone is that LCD. How would you suggest they prove this? I can't think of a way, which is why limits are set for the LCD.



Drives up to the cottage on long weekends would be smooth?

People would be free to drive 130-140, and accidents reduced because the impatient people won't need to weave around blocks of traffic doing 100 (who are only doing 100 because of the blitzes)?

You say that no imposed limits would smooth trips to the cottage, because people would be free to drive at 130-140 and they wouldn't be negotiating around slower moving traffic. Earlier in this thread you said that without speed limits people would travel at their own comfort level. This is a complete contradiction. Not everyone's comfort level will be at 130 or 140, therefore you will still have slower traffic. Large differentials obviously cause problems. Now, what would be a way to control differentials? Maybe a limit, with enforcement?


People would be more alert and conscientious of their driving because they are now responsible for their own wellbeing?

Who is responsible for drivers' well being currently?

[watching]

Umm, yes they very often are, you seem to have that 'if the police say it's so, it's so' mentality which is incredibly naive.

Read the posts of the ones complaining. Every one of them admits to either speeding or parking illegally, so again you're wrong.


Numerous tickets, not only speeding tickets, are written up for reasons other than legitimate ones.

A link to statistics or other proof of that comment would add some weight to that hot air.


And the argument that if you don't think the laws are fair run for office to change them or you have no right complain...crap. It's like the 'if you don't vote, you have no right to complain....again crap. If you pay taxes you have the right to complain...period.

Again, you're putting words in another posters mouth. I've not said anything about the right to complain, what I've said is breaking the law because you don't agree with it is NOT legal. See the difference? :rolleyes:


I really don't think breaking the law as a form of protest is effective, but sometimes it is the only way to get to court to challenge the laws.

:lol:Are you aware that courts don't create legislation in this country? They interpret the legislation. Our elected officials are the ones who create legislation, not the pay-your-fee- and-you're-appointed judges.



If one feels the desire to do something proactive to change the laws, there are many many other ways to do that than run for office. Even winning office doesn't guarantee you have the power to change laws....and is kind of overkill to run for office for that one specific reason. And your characterization of not running for office as 'apathetic' is such a stretch as to make your entire position evewn weaker.

What are those other ways then, other than running for office? Are you supposed to be a lawyer? Because if you are, surely you're aware that supporting/condoning/encouraging violating laws in this country is not something your governing body supports.

Breaking HTA laws because you don't like them is immature, selfish and dangerous. A lot of people need to grow the hell up and make change the realistic and correct way instead of whining after knowingly breaking current laws and putting others at risk of serious injury or death. If you are a lawyer, it's disgusting that you'd even hint at condoning the violation of ANY law.

[Nikita]

Read the posts of the ones complaining. Every one of them admits to either speeding or parking illegally, so again you're wrong.



A link to statistics or other proof of that comment would add some weight to that hot air.



Again, you're putting words in another posters mouth. I've not said anything about the right to complain, what I've said is breaking the law because you don't agree with it is NOT legal. See the difference? :rolleyes:



:lol:Are you aware that courts don't create legislation in this country? They interpret the legislation. Our elected officials are the ones who create legislation, not the pay-your-fee- and-you're-appointed judges.




What are those other ways then, other than running for office? Are you supposed to be a lawyer? Because if you are, surely you're aware that supporting/condoning/encouraging violating laws in this country is not something your governing body supports.

Breaking HTA laws because you don't like them is immature, selfish and dangerous. A lot of people need to grow the hell up and make change the realistic and correct way instead of whining after knowingly breaking current laws and putting others at risk of serious injury or death. If you are a lawyer, it's disgusting that you'd even hint at condoning the violation of ANY law.

LOL...your naivete is astounding, not surprising but astounding. And you're comment about "pay-your-fee- and-you're-appointed judges" only reinforces your ignorance. A link to statistics or other proof of that comment would add some weight to that hot air. You should stop watching so much U.S. television and consider learning a little sumptin sumptin about the Canadian legal system.

And talk about putting words in one's mouth, where did I even 'hint at condoning the violation of ANY law'. I didn't. I said "...sometimes it is the only way to get to court to challenge the laws". See the difference? Probably not. Do I care? Definitely not.

[65505201]

As I said before, I'm not sure how you would expect the police to have discretion because of they have no way of proving a driver's abilities on the spot, or by looking at them. They have to assume everyone is that LCD. How would you suggest they prove this? I can't think of a way, which is why limits are set for the LCD.


And....you don't see a problem with that? If we apply that LCD mentality to laws other than the HTA, well, let's be glad we don't.



You say that no imposed limits would smooth trips to the cottage, because people would be free to drive at 130-140 and they wouldn't be negotiating around slower moving traffic. Earlier in this thread you said that without speed limits people would travel at their own comfort level. This is a complete contradiction. Not everyone's comfort level will be at 130 or 140, therefore you will still have slower traffic. Large differentials obviously cause problems. Now, what would be a way to control differentials? Maybe a limit, with enforcement?


Or how about enforcing the pass on the left, cruise on the right? Is 30-50kph really that large a differential on highways? We pass stop signs faster than that. We pass each other on 2 lane highways at 160+kph. Now, I'm not advocating that we do 260 on the highways, but the argument that a small speed differential (considering 120-130 is the typical speed in the middle lane) is dangerous is absurd.

It's just like when I was on the 407 before the racing law was enacted. We'd all be doing 160 on the left lane. Occasionally, someone will squeeze in doing 130-140, but passing cars in the middle lane. We all slow down for a while until the car doing 130-140 finds a free spot to enter in the middle lane, then we're all back up to 160.

Dangerous? Not really when we're all driving predictably, leave enough space, and *share* the road.

Driving down here in the States is actually more pleasant than in TO. People actually move to the right when possible, regardless of their speed relative to the limit.



Who is responsible for drivers' well being currently?

Considering health insurance is 'free' and how collision rules are structured, certainly not the drivers. When you have the driver in the back automatically 100% at fault (even when someone slams on their brakes for no reason or made an unsafe lane change), you have a problem.

You have the asshats that think they can do no wrong if they're under the limit and holding their hands at the 10/2 o'clock positions. I had this conversation with a senior (well, not quite, but high 60s) the other day. She regularly does 80 on the highway. Legal? Yes. Safe? Hell no.

If you introduce the risk of death to everyday driving, I'd bet a lot more people would put more thought into the safety of their actions than simply following whatever guideline the government publishes.

My mom has the good sense to stay off the highways because she knows she can't handle high speeds...despite having the legal right to do so.

[65505201]

If you are a lawyer, it's disgusting that you'd even hint at condoning the violation of ANY law.

Isn't any defense lawyer technically condoning the violation of any law, considering they are resisting the prosection's/crown's efforts? Aren't cops condoning the violation of the HTA every time they speed or run yellows? 9 times out of 10 when I see a cop car, he/she does something illegal that would've warranted a ticket if the tables were reversed.

[Nikita]

Isn't any defense lawyer technically condoning the violation of any law, considering they are resisting the prosection's/crown's efforts? Aren't cops condoning the violation of the HTA every time they speed or run yellows? 9 times out of 10 when I see a cop car, he/she does something illegal that would've warranted a ticket if the tables were reversed.

Umm, no, that is some twisted logic. Defense lawyers do what they are required by law to do, which is to provide a defence, ensure due process, especially a fair trial, and ensure a conviction is solid and based on the legal requirements for a conviction. All defense lawyers are condoning is the system. Your statement assumes that, in your words, ' resisting the prosecution's/crown's efforts', means everyone being prosecuted has violated the law, that everyone prosecuted is guilty.....a very surprising assumption coming from you and verrrrry inacurrate.

[watching]

Isn't any defense lawyer technically condoning the violation of any law, considering they are resisting the prosection's/crown's efforts? Aren't cops condoning the violation of the HTA every time they speed or run yellows? 9 times out of 10 when I see a cop car, he/she does something illegal that would've warranted a ticket if the tables were reversed.


1. No, the job of a defense lawyer is to make the prosecution prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. If the cops are speeding illegally, they aren't condoning anything they're breaking the law.

[shawn99]

I requested a trial for expired stickers charge last year Nov. The trial took place this week. I showed up and they called me up and stated my name and without hesitation the judge said, "withdrawn" with no explanation.

Now, the cop was there, albeit couple of mins late, just as the judge came through the door. I don't know if this has basis or not...

My question is, why would they setup a trial and not go after the charge? It's a easy $110 for the city. i pretty much didn't have a case here. My car didn't pass emissions and stickers expired, i shouldn't have been driving with expired stickers.

[65505201]

Umm, no, that is some twisted logic. Defense lawyers do what they are required by law to do, which is to provide a defence, ensure due process, especially a fair trial, and ensure a conviction is solid and based on the legal requirements for a conviction. All defense lawyers are condoning is the system. Your statement assumes that, in your words, ' resisting the prosecution's/crown's efforts', means everyone being prosecuted has violated the law, that everyone prosecuted is guilty.....a very surprising assumption coming from you and verrrrry inacurrate.

I should've been more specific. I'm not saying that everyone being prosecuted has violated the law, or that everyone prosecuted is guilty, but rather in the cases where the defendant has confessed his crime to the lawyer and they're still pleading not guilty. While you can say the lawyer is doing his/her job, isn't putting up a fight knowing full well your client is guilty somewhat condoning the illegal behavior?

You can't honestly say that the lawyers representing the mob is condoning the system and not the behavior?

[65505201]

1. No, the job of a defense lawyer is to make the prosecution prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt.


So what's wrong with us representing ourselves and making the prosecution prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt?



2. If the cops are speeding illegally, they aren't condoning anything they're breaking the law.

Considering they are also the ones responsible for handing out the tickets, I'd say they're condoning it.

[watching]

So what's wrong with us representing ourselves and making the prosecution prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt?

Obviously you have that right. My argument is that for simple parking/speeding tickets it's a waste of resources if you know you're guilty as charged, which everyone on here who's received one of those tickets has admitted. Why is it so wrong to pay the price when you know you've broken HTA legislation? Is there anyone here who's received one of those parking/speeding tickets and not tried to weasel their way out of responsibility at taxpayers' expense?

[65505201]

Why is it so wrong to pay the price when you know you've broken HTA legislation?

Aaaand, we're back at the start of this circular argument. Because we think the HTA legislation is bull? Because we don't think the city is entitled to our cash on a whim (or rather when budgets are tight)? Because if the city wants that cash, they better work harder than posting a cop on the side of the road to earn it?

Again, it's funny how you'd frame it as "taxpayer's expense". I'm sure given how few people actually put up a fight, they are still *making* money hand over fist. It's odd that you think cities are *entitled* to use fines to help balance budget.

[watching]

Aaaand, we're back at the start of this circular argument. Because we think the HTA legislation is bull?

Run for office and get that legislation amended?


Because we don't think the city is entitled to our cash on a whim (or rather when budgets are tight)?

Answer: Don't speed or park illegally. Problem solved.


Because if the city wants that cash, they better work harder than posting a cop on the side of the road to earn it?

HTA is a Provincial Act, not a municipal ordinance. HTA legislation is traffic control and safety, both vehicular and public. If you're looking for the autobahn, it's over in Germany. :lol:


Again, it's funny how you'd frame it as "taxpayer's expense".

Who pays the costs of traffic court administration and Prosecutors? The taxpayers.


It's odd that you think cities are *entitled* to use fines to help balance budget.

I said that? :confused:

[65505201]

Run for office and get that legislation amended?

Answer: Don't speed or park illegally. Problem solved.


Aaaand, here we go again.



HTA is a Provincial Act, not a municipal ordinance. HTA legislation is traffic control and safety, both vehicular and public. If you're looking for the autobahn, it's over in Germany. :lol:


City, province, whatever.



Who pays the costs of traffic court administration and Prosecutors? The taxpayers.

I said that? :confused:

Considering the city/province makes more money from ticket revenues than from paying cops, prosecutors, and judges, the taxpayers aren't paying for anything. Yes, they will be seeing less money when tickets are challenged, but the taxpayer or government shouldn't care unless they think they're entitled to spend that revenue.

[iluvmikeharris]

Obviously you have that right. My argument is that for simple parking/speeding tickets it's a waste of resources if you know you're guilty as charged, which everyone on here who's received one of those tickets has admitted. Why is it so wrong to pay the price when you know you've broken HTA legislation? Is there anyone here who's received one of those parking/speeding tickets and not tried to weasel their way out of responsibility at taxpayers' expense?

Then they should go back to the voluntary payment system with the reduced fine. There is no incentive now to pay - I have a City of Toronto ticket that's been waiting for a trial for over 2 years - that's $30 plus interest that's still in my pocket.

[fantom]

Run for office and get that legislation amended?

What if we don't have the time and experience or will needed to do that? Not everyone is fit and capable of handling something like that, nor able or willing either...


Answer: Don't speed or park illegally. Problem solved.

Again, this is chicken or the egg question. What if that current traffic laws are ******** in the first place...?

I've spent some time in Germany and all over the world for that matter (I'll get off the parking tickets theme for now), and I'm still amazed when I come back to Toronto... people everywhere else in the world seem to have the speed limits on the roads as "guidelines" whereas we have them as "laws" that carry punishment if broken.

Everywhere else in the world (and Germany) people actually drive at the speeds they're comfortable at, and somehow, amazingly enough, on highways most people don't go over 160-170km/h... hell, I've driven on Autobahn and gone up to 170km/h (because the car I rented couldn't go faster), and only about 1% of all the cars on that highway were actually going faster than me and I had to get out of the fast lane to let them thru, as a courtesy. Everyone else, even with the crazy high amount of capable and new cars on the roads, was still cruising at 120-140km/h...

So, I don't think it would be ANY different in Toronto if the speed limits were removed - people would still drive up to their comfort level. I would still be busting 160km/h in the left lane, old men and ladies would still get pushed all the way into the right lane cuz they are affraid to go over 90km/h... and then I would just like to see cops on the road looking for people who are slowing the traffic down (for example those old farts getting into the left lane and driving 90 and stuff like that)... I'm sure that would take care of a lot of congestion on the roads.


Who pays the costs of traffic court administration and Prosecutors? The taxpayers.

Again, if they weren't handing out tickets for all the silly stuff like driving 17km/h over the speed limit and all the other b.s. that people can't believe they actually got pulled over for, then the courts wouldn't have so much to work with and less people/resources would be needed to tackle these issues. But, since I am now convinced that gov't (city/provincial/whatever) is after the taxpayers' money one way or another, they'll just try to come up with new laws and ways of grabbing more of our hard earned money and won't be looking for ways to reduce that... so fvck 'em, I'll fight them for every little petty ticket I get, as it's my money they're after, and I don't agree with their laws in the first place. And maybe, just maybe, that's my way for "running for the office" and challenging the laws I find dumb and stupid - I do what I can ;)

[Ebtek]

my wife just got a speeding ticket: 55 in a 40. all the info on the ticket is correct except it clearly says "09" for the details of the car she was driving when its actually an "00" (it is very clear that it says "09").

is there anything to this? or is it just silly to think this can be thrown out over something like this?

what if i request disclosure, and it says "00". would that contradict the ticket and be thrown out for no credability? what if the disclosure also says "09"?

[iplom]

my wife just got a speeding ticket: 55 in a 40. all the info on the ticket is correct except it clearly says "09" for the details of the car she was driving when its actually an "00" (it is very clear that it says "09").

is there anything to this? or is it just silly to think this can be thrown out over something like this?

what if i request disclosure, and it says "00". would that contradict the ticket and be thrown out for no credability? what if the disclosure also says "09"?

Close to zero chance it would be "thrown out" because of an error such as this, the Crown would be allowed to amend the information, it would then be corrected.

Better chance of the officer not showing up. I had a seatbelt ticket I was defending in Newmarket, cop was there but a shortage of JP'swhich meant every defendant in court that day had his/her charges withdrawn by the crown as there was no one to make verdicts on the cases.

[Whitedart]

my wife just got a speeding ticket: 55 in a 40. all the info on the ticket is correct except it clearly says "09" for the details of the car she was driving when its actually an "00" (it is very clear that it says "09").

is there anything to this? or is it just silly to think this can be thrown out over something like this?

what if i request disclosure, and it says "00". would that contradict the ticket and be thrown out for no credability? what if the disclosure also says "09"?

And what year does your license validation sticker expire? They don't care what year your model of car is.

[Rekognize]

my wife just got a speeding ticket: 55 in a 40. all the info on the ticket is correct except it clearly says "09" for the details of the car she was driving when its actually an "00" (it is very clear that it says "09").

is there anything to this? or is it just silly to think this can be thrown out over something like this?

what if i request disclosure, and it says "00". would that contradict the ticket and be thrown out for no credability? what if the disclosure also says "09"?

It's a valid ticket!

[Shaner]

my wife just got a speeding ticket: 55 in a 40. all the info on the ticket is correct except it clearly says "09" for the details of the car she was driving when its actually an "00" (it is very clear that it says "09").

is there anything to this? or is it just silly to think this can be thrown out over something like this?

what if i request disclosure, and it says "00". would that contradict the ticket and be thrown out for no credability? what if the disclosure also says "09"?

It's not the year of the car, it's the year your license plate sticker expires.

[h2lam]

I got a $40 speeding ticket, no demerit points today for going 10KM over a 40KM/hr school zone. Should I fight it. I am a full time student with lots of time from now until July 2009. How long will it take for me to get a court date & what would I end up paying if I were to go to court? Would I get it half off which is $20 instead of $40?

[ticketcombat]

I got a $40 speeding ticket, no demerit points today for going 10KM over a 40KM/hr school zone. Should I fight it. I am a full time student with lots of time from now until July 2009. How long will it take for me to get a court date & what would I end up paying if I were to go to court? Would I get it half off which is $20 instead of $40?
You've posted this 6 times in 6 different threads:
http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8357307#post8357307
http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8357299#post8357299
http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8357285#post8357285
http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8357277#post8357277
http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8357275#post8357275

Ironic that this thread is about "clogging up the system".

[Nikita]

You've posted this 6 times in 6 different threads:
http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8357307#post8357307
http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8357299#post8357299
http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8357285#post8357285
http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8357277#post8357277
http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8357275#post8357275

Ironic that this thread is about "clogging up the system".

Irony noted...lol. Glad someone said something....h2lam I believe this would be considered cross-posting (or is that only when posting the same thing in different forums?) and against the rules....and it's damned annoying!

[darkdrgn2k]

Fyst is dead.. its OLD.

New Improved Wiki
www.mytrafficticketdefence.com (http://www.mytrafficticketdefence.com)

[undo]

thx op

[razvan]

First of all, I would like to apologize for upping a thread a few months old, however, the information here is nearly invaluable.

Also, something really bugs me about 'selpats' and others so viciously claiming about a lack of responsibility, and about immaturity.

People talk about illegal or immoral... you know what's immoral?

When they have streets changing speeds about 12 times in less than 5 kilometers. It's such a confusing web of 40, 70, 50, 60, 80, 50, changing almost every light, for NO apparent reason.

You have streets where the limit is different from each side, even though it's the same type of street on either side (residential, commercial, main, etc...).

You have T intersections, where you come from the bottom part, which is 60, you see the sign going right, it is 60. The street going left is 50, but you cannot see it if you make a left turn, because it's CLEVERLY placed just in front of the intersection. You can see the sign, just not the speed. There is ALWAYS a cop there, and they will pull you over. God help you if you accelerate to 66, which you think is 6 over, but it's really 16.

You have speed limit signs that are broken down and nearly invisible, wrong angle so you cannot see them at night. You call the city to fix them, they never do, but you see a cop there... EVERY SINGLE MORNING. Sometimes, you try to adjust the sign, but you need some sort of equipment, or more than one person. Sometimes, we do this ourselves, but sometimes, you cannot.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but if they purposefully make the law obfuscated, or are themselves aware that they are basically entrapping people, and do NOTHING about it, what does that say about the IMMORALITY of the system?

Also, MOST IMPORTANTLY, as people have said here, the REAL criminals are the insurance companies, which are a CARTEL (illegal in Canada, but hey... i guess the government or big companies are completely above these petty laws for us common taxpayers).

For a small traffic ticket, they think nothing of increasing your premiums, sometimes even doubling them, or more. Someone driving 65 in a 50, screwed because they purposefully made it so you think it's a 60, can easily go from $2000 to $4500 a year, for 3 years. That's $7500, TAXED at 35%-40% depending on your tax bracket, so you essentially pay about 10k of your net salary for this. Oh, yes, certainly moral. We'll see how moral it is when you cannot feed your family.

Finally, one thing to say about the law, which certain people are unclear. If you disagree with the law, you don't break it to show your displeasure with it. That is not the right way. You fight it, you fight it in court, you fight it in legislation. Unfortunately, even if the laws are terrible and sadistic, it's the government's right to have them, and enforce them.

Also, one thing about 'selpats' and others so viciously claiming about a lack of responsibility, and about immaturity and such. As others have pointed your hypocrisy out, I won't bother reitterratting it, but I have just one question for all of you.

You do realize the courts ONLY purpose to us is SPECIFICALLY for this situation?

The entire legal basis of our democracy, and the universal declaration of human rights the entire civilized world over, states you are allowed to have a fair trial over a crime you committed. You are calling people immature, pathetic, irresponsible, for exercising one of the most basic rights.

Heh.

[Nikita]

First of all, I would like to apologize for upping a thread a few months old, however, the information here is nearly invaluable.

Also, something really bugs me about 'selpats' and others so viciously claiming about a lack of responsibility, and about immaturity.

People talk about illegal or immoral... you know what's immoral?

When they have streets changing speeds about 12 times in less than 5 kilometers. It's such a confusing web of 40, 70, 50, 60, 80, 50, changing almost every light, for NO apparent reason.

You have streets where the limit is different from each side, even though it's the same type of street on either side (residential, commercial, main, etc...).

You have T intersections, where you come from the bottom part, which is 60, you see the sign going right, it is 60. The street going left is 50, but you cannot see it if you make a left turn, because it's CLEVERLY placed just in front of the intersection. You can see the sign, just not the speed. There is ALWAYS a cop there, and they will pull you over. God help you if you accelerate to 66, which you think is 6 over, but it's really 16.

You have speed limit signs that are broken down and nearly invisible, wrong angle so you cannot see them at night. You call the city to fix them, they never do, but you see a cop there... EVERY SINGLE MORNING. Sometimes, you try to adjust the sign, but you need some sort of equipment, or more than one person. Sometimes, we do this ourselves, but sometimes, you cannot.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but if they purposefully make the law obfuscated, or are themselves aware that they are basically entrapping people, and do NOTHING about it, what does that say about the IMMORALITY of the system?

Also, MOST IMPORTANTLY, as people have said here, the REAL criminals are the insurance companies, which are a CARTEL (illegal in Canada, but hey... i guess the government or big companies are completely above these petty laws for us common taxpayers).

For a small traffic ticket, they think nothing of increasing your premiums, sometimes even doubling them, or more. Someone driving 65 in a 50, screwed because they purposefully made it so you think it's a 60, can easily go from $2000 to $4500 a year, for 3 years. That's $7500, TAXED at 35%-40% depending on your tax bracket, so you essentially pay about 10k of your net salary for this. Oh, yes, certainly moral. We'll see how moral it is when you cannot feed your family.

Finally, one thing to say about the law, which certain people are unclear. If you disagree with the law, you don't break it to show your displeasure with it. That is not the right way. You fight it, you fight it in court, you fight it in legislation. Unfortunately, even if the laws are terrible and sadistic, it's the government's right to have them, and enforce them.

Also, one thing about 'selpats' and others so viciously claiming about a lack of responsibility, and about immaturity and such. As others have pointed your hypocrisy out, I won't bother reitterratting it, but I have just one question for all of you.

You do realize the courts ONLY purpose to us is SPECIFICALLY for this situation?

The entire legal basis of our democracy, and the universal declaration of human rights the entire civilized world over, states you are allowed to have a fair trial over a crime you committed. You are calling people immature, pathetic, irresponsible, for exercising one of the most basic rights.

Heh.

And do you know how fighting a law in court without breaking the law happens in practice? You have to have standing, which you don't have without being a defendant, i.e. getting charged. You do know, don't you, that you can't just walk into a court and say you want to challenge a law. Unless of course you want to try to seek a Constitutional Reference at the Supreme Court....and good luck with that...:rolleyes: Even at that you can only challenge the 'legality' of the law, not the 'morality' of it.

I'll leave the 'get a blog' comment to someone else.

[UncleSteve]

Finally, one thing to say about the law, which certain people are unclear. If you disagree with the law, you don't break it to show your displeasure with it. That is not the right way. You fight it, you fight it in court, you fight it in legislation. Unfortunately, even if the laws are terrible and sadistic, it's the government's right to have them, and enforce them.


It's a good thing Rosa Parks or Henry Morgenthaler or hundreds, even thousands of others didn't have your attitude.

Heh yourself.

[Nikita]

It's a good thing Rosa Parks or Henry Morgenthaler or hundreds, even thousands of others didn't have your attitude.

Heh yourself.

Touche Uncle Steve!

And lol@ the 'heh yourself'!

[razvan]

It's a good thing Rosa Parks or Henry Morgenthaler or hundreds, even thousands of others didn't have your attitude.

Heh yourself.
Did you randomly just take one thing from my post, completely out of bloody context and miss the entirety of it? That paragraph was more of a lip service to placate certain people, but I will take your challenge.

You know what breaking the law will do in this case? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. You can speed every bloody day in your zealous crusade, get a ticket every day, and accomplish what? Except for being unable to drive, what will you accomplish? Sure, you will become a hero to certain people, but ultimately, they aren't the ones paying your fines.

Sure, it could happen. Unlikely. Same for you trying to lobby for it, which as Nikita stated is a rather slim chance. But which of the two you think is likelier to succeed, without ruining your life?

You have to be smart if you want to win this. As plenty of articles linked here have stated, you have to be REALLY smart to win this.

And I will heh myself. Don't make me heh you.

Nikita: get a blog? What does that have to do with anything?

[mkerian]

Did you just get a ticket and are now upset about it? It's kind of strange that as a new poster you dig up an old thread to rant about speeding.

[razvan]

Did you just get a ticket and are now upset about it? It's kind of strange that as a new poster you dig up an old thread to rant about speeding.
The thread was dug up for 2 reasons. One, it's GOOD information. Secondly, a statement by selpats triggered the length of the post. I probably should have just said bump, but figured I might put something else so the post isn't a waste. That was probably a mistake.

[m4gician]

Ya...defending and beating a speeding ticket on a technicality is hard enough...doing it repeatidly is not something I want to do for myself...

...Parking tickets are fun though. File for court date, it goes away, yay.

[Nikita]

Did you randomly just take one thing from my post, completely out of bloody context and miss the entirety of it? That paragraph was more of a lip service to placate certain people, but I will take your challenge.

You know what breaking the law will do in this case? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. You can speed every bloody day in your zealous crusade, get a ticket every day, and accomplish what? Except for being unable to drive, what will you accomplish? Sure, you will become a hero to certain people, but ultimately, they aren't the ones paying your fines.



No, what it could do is give you standing to challenge the legality/constitutionality of the law, which is just what advocated. Since you didn't answer my question as how do you think you do that, for the second time I've answered it for you.

[razvan]

No, what it could do is give you standing to challenge the legality/constitutionality of the law, which is just what advocated. Since you didn't answer my question as how do you think you do that, for the second time I've answered it for you.
Ah, I see what you mean. Sorry, I missed it the first time. You are correct, I never considered this.

[Xyrodon]

First of all, I would like to apologize for upping a thread a few months old, however, the information here is nearly invaluable.

Also, something really bugs me about 'selpats' and others so viciously claiming about a lack of responsibility, and about immaturity.

People talk about illegal or immoral... you know what's immoral?

When they have streets changing speeds about 12 times in less than 5 kilometers. It's such a confusing web of 40, 70, 50, 60, 80, 50, changing almost every light, for NO apparent reason.

You have streets where the limit is different from each side, even though it's the same type of street on either side (residential, commercial, main, etc...).

You have T intersections, where you come from the bottom part, which is 60, you see the sign going right, it is 60. The street going left is 50, but you cannot see it if you make a left turn, because it's CLEVERLY placed just in front of the intersection. You can see the sign, just not the speed. There is ALWAYS a cop there, and they will pull you over. God help you if you accelerate to 66, which you think is 6 over, but it's really 16.

You have speed limit signs that are broken down and nearly invisible, wrong angle so you cannot see them at night. You call the city to fix them, they never do, but you see a cop there... EVERY SINGLE MORNING. Sometimes, you try to adjust the sign, but you need some sort of equipment, or more than one person. Sometimes, we do this ourselves, but sometimes, you cannot.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but if they purposefully make the law obfuscated, or are themselves aware that they are basically entrapping people, and do NOTHING about it, what does that say about the IMMORALITY of the system?

Also, MOST IMPORTANTLY, as people have said here, the REAL criminals are the insurance companies, which are a CARTEL (illegal in Canada, but hey... i guess the government or big companies are completely above these petty laws for us common taxpayers).

For a small traffic ticket, they think nothing of increasing your premiums, sometimes even doubling them, or more. Someone driving 65 in a 50, screwed because they purposefully made it so you think it's a 60, can easily go from $2000 to $4500 a year, for 3 years. That's $7500, TAXED at 35%-40% depending on your tax bracket, so you essentially pay about 10k of your net salary for this. Oh, yes, certainly moral. We'll see how moral it is when you cannot feed your family.

Finally, one thing to say about the law, which certain people are unclear. If you disagree with the law, you don't break it to show your displeasure with it. That is not the right way. You fight it, you fight it in court, you fight it in legislation. Unfortunately, even if the laws are terrible and sadistic, it's the government's right to have them, and enforce them.

Also, one thing about 'selpats' and others so viciously claiming about a lack of responsibility, and about immaturity and such. As others have pointed your hypocrisy out, I won't bother reitterratting it, but I have just one question for all of you.

You do realize the courts ONLY purpose to us is SPECIFICALLY for this situation?

The entire legal basis of our democracy, and the universal declaration of human rights the entire civilized world over, states you are allowed to have a fair trial over a crime you committed. You are calling people immature, pathetic, irresponsible, for exercising one of the most basic rights.

Heh.



Great post!!

[gamer123]

guess what, i just received a notice of trial for 1 of my many parking tickets lol. i filed it in july 08 and the court date is oct 09. since its 1.5 yrs, i should get it thrown out? other than disclosure, what else do i need to do now?

honestly i have nothing to fight it lol. im hoping that the parking people (?) doesnt show up or chartered rights 11b goes to my favour. at worst, i'll just have to pay $30 right?

[m4gician]

guess what, i just received a notice of trial for 1 of my many parking tickets lol. i filed it in july 08 and the court date is oct 09. since its 1.5 yrs, i should get it thrown out? other than disclosure, what else do i need to do now?

honestly i have nothing to fight it lol. im hoping that the parking people (?) doesnt show up or chartered rights 11b goes to my favour. at worst, i'll just have to pay $30 right?

Same thing happened to me, I'm filing documents for those as well.

[Kellster]

If it's OK for the cops to give the tickets, it's ok for the driver to fight them. To HELL with the cops if they can't handle it.

[Kellster]

While I don't agree with every single point you make, this is overall a great post.

I would like to add something to this whole debate over speeding laws and exercising the rights to fight alleged crimes. What seems the most fishy to me about the speed limits we have is that no one really takes them seriously. Given an opportunity (i.e. clear road with no traffic) everyone will go over the limit. Some will go 2km/h over, some will go 49km/h over. The thing is, both are equally "criminal". Both will result in equal insurance increases. 'Cause you know, criminals are at a higher risk :).

That's what disgusts me the most, it's like the government specifically tailored these rules so that every single citizen can be seen as a criminal from one angle or the other. Sure, most people don't go around stealing, raping and murdering others, but all of us (at least those that drive automobiles) have been speeding. At least on some occasions, at least by a little bit.

When there is a law and everyone is breaking it, I call it a BS law. Laws are meant to be respected, and if no one respects a law, something is seriously wrong with the legal system.


While driving, some laws need to be interpreted and judgements need to be made based on the current situation. If traffic on a highway is moving at 115 or 120 km/h, it is just plain stupid to play the little goody two-shoes law-abiding suck-up and try to force everybody to drive at 100. It's not only stupid...it's dangerous. Also, 15 over the limit at 100 is hardly the same as 15 over at 40.

Interestingly, since June, all large commercial trucks in Ontario have had speed limiters installed so that they can not drive over 105 km/h. If the Ontario government and it's savior, Julian Fantino were really serious about putting an end to what they call "stunt driving" of anybody driving 50 over the limit, why not just have all cars limited to 145 km/h? (Seriously, when do you really need to drive any faster than that?).

I will give you a subtle hint: They would lose too much revenue. They would have to then make a case that "stunt driving" was 40 over the limit. There is no way they would ever give up the easy money they can get from speeding tickets. It is not about safety...it is about the money. I know it, they know it, we all know it.

[fantom]

honestly i have nothing to fight it lol. im hoping that the parking people (?) doesnt show up or chartered rights 11b goes to my favour. at worst, i'll just have to pay $30 right?

at worst, you'll have to pay 1/2 of it, so $15.

in the 2nd best case scenario, you'll have to pay $5 (depending on prosecutor who "suggests" the fine, in case you plead guilty).

in the best case scenario, the officer doesn't show up and you walk away not guilty ;)

[h2lam]

I have 2 speeding tickets in the last 6 months for this year 2009. First ticket was going 10KM over on a 40KM zone (school zone). 2nd ticket was going 15KM over on a 40KM residential zone.

Will my insurance go up alot when I renew it next yr if I am convicted for these 2 tickets? There's no demerit points but it will show up on my driving record for 3 yrs.

Please advise. I am debating if its worth it to hire those Xcopper places to help me fight for the tickets if my insurance will go up a lot or just go to court & represent myself.... I am with Belair Insurance at the moment and they said that they do look at every ticket and count them towards calculating premium :(....

[Crinkle_cut]

Learn to fight your tickets here. Greatest resource of information EVER!!

Someone posted this before for myself, and I followed the steps on the website to fight my ticket.

http://www.ticketcombat.com/

[Rekognize]

Learn to fight your tickets here. Greatest resource of information EVER!!

Someone posted this before for myself, and I followed the steps on the website to fight my ticket.

http://www.ticketcombat.com/

I followed the steps on that site and won! :D

[neoborn]

my ideal solution would be to mail the disclosure with the confirmation of trial date, make it mandatory for officers to show up for trial, impose financial penalties (court costs) for convictions, and have the province issue more traffic tickets to pay for all this. and implement all this before we have traffic anarchy ie. ppl taking advantage of hov lanes, ppl driving at 140 km/h because 100 is too slow, ppl parking in the middle of yonge st with their hazards on so they can grab a coffee, drivers running reds because they're late, rolling stops because a "stop" sign is just a recommendation, cars blocking the intersection, etc.

LOL your ideal is a lil low on the rung of the idealistic possibility ladder, don't you think?

Out of all the possible solutions to this problem the only one you can think of is supporting a broken system with laws that 90% of the people don't follow(referring to speeding)?

What about fixing the flawed system? Let's be honest and logical, speed doesn't kill, hitting hard objects etc at a 'high' speed does, so the whole "speed kills" is done with.

Ok so what about this:

More effective yearly or bi-yearly testing that involves high rates of speed, variety of road conditions etc etc
adjusting the speed limits to what they truly are i.e. 140KMH Max and enforce a 100KMH min
Actually fixing the whole system of A) The 'driving' lane is now the fast lane, B) The passing lane is now the driving lane and C) The fast lane is now a combined driving / passing lane problem? I never see people getting pulled for this bs and its one of the major problems.
Actually having cops help people that are broken down, vehicles that are not roadworthy etc rather than just focusing on revenue creation.
Punishing those that actually A) Cause major crashes B) Kill people C) Drive severely impaired and get them off the road rather than, you know drunk drivers etc being allowed back on the roads etc to kill / injure.


The system does not work for you, it is agreeable at most if you are 100% submissive and compliant and 100% against you if you are not!

Now run along good lil citizens of utopia.

[neoborn]

Simple question. Were you wrong? If so, man up and pay.

No I wasn't but the speed limit was, so um let me think attempt to get that changed or fight it in court....schyah :lol:

[stealth]

I'm sorry, I can't get past the first paragraph of the first post in this thread
Hey guys, recently a lot of you have been PMing me asking me how to file for disclosure and stuff like that. So instead of replying to each PM, I'm just going to post everything I know in here.

Why would anyone be PM-ing this guy (of all people) for advice ?:confused:

[neoborn]

While driving, some laws need to be interpreted and judgements need to be made based on the current situation. If traffic on a highway is moving at 115 or 120 km/h, it is just plain stupid to play the little goody two-shoes law-abiding suck-up and try to force everybody to drive at 100. It's not only stupid...it's dangerous. Also, 15 over the limit at 100 is hardly the same as 15 over at 40.

Interestingly, since June, all large commercial trucks in Ontario have had speed limiters installed so that they can not drive over 105 km/h. If the Ontario government and it's savior, Julian Fantino were really serious about putting an end to what they call "stunt driving" of anybody driving 50 over the limit, why not just have all cars limited to 145 km/h? (Seriously, when do you really need to drive any faster than that?).

I will give you a subtle hint: They would lose too much revenue. They would have to then make a case that "stunt driving" was 40 over the limit. There is no way they would ever give up the easy money they can get from speeding tickets. It is not about safety...it is about the money. I know it, they know it, we all know it.

Its a beautiful thing how clearly you see this, its breathtakingly lovely :idea::):idea:

[SuperCM]

I followed the steps on that site and won! :D

Curious to know which angle you attacked in your case?

[h2lam]

According to online insurance quote with my current insurance company. If I were to have 1 speeding ticket, it would go up by $96 next year and 2 speeding tickets would be $143/yr.

I talked to a Paralegal company called Charge.ca, they charge $420 per case which is per ticket. So I am debating on what to do. If I were to not hire anyone to help me, the total cost of my insurance going up would $143 * 3 yrs = $429 which is equal to getting them to help me fight 1 ticket though.

What do you think? HMMMMMMM? Any advice or suggestions?

[Rekognize]

Curious to know which angle you attacked in your case?

The charge was some Improper right turn BS, 2 demerit points.

I took pics of the intersection; my pov and officer's pov from his cruiser. Basically I poked holes in his statement saying that he didn't have a clear view of the intersection from his point of view inside his cruiser. Thrown out.


According to online insurance quote with my current insurance company. If I were to have 1 speeding ticket, it would go up by $96 next year and 2 speeding tickets would be $143/yr.

I talked to a Paralegal company called Charge.ca, they charge $420 per case which is per ticket. So I am debating on what to do. If I were to not hire anyone to help me, the total cost of my insurance going up would $143 * 3 yrs = $429 which is equal to getting them to help me fight 1 ticket though.

What do you think? HMMMMMMM? Any advice or suggestions?

I used these guys (http://www.alltraffictickets.com/contact.php) and they got me off the hook, twice. $250 per case.

edit: here's a coupon for $25 off. PDF (http://www.alltraffictickets.com/downloads/coupon.pdf)

[pintobean]

According to online insurance quote with my current insurance company. If I were to have 1 speeding ticket, it would go up by $96 next year and 2 speeding tickets would be $143/yr.

I talked to a Paralegal company called Charge.ca, they charge $420 per case which is per ticket. So I am debating on what to do. If I were to not hire anyone to help me, the total cost of my insurance going up would $143 * 3 yrs = $429 which is equal to getting them to help me fight 1 ticket though.

What do you think? HMMMMMMM? Any advice or suggestions?
I would be very weary of paying someone $420 to fight your tickets for you. Chances are that they would simply go to court on your behalf, plead guilty to a lesser charge, and then pay the lower fine out of the $420 that you gave them. The end result is that they still walk away with a decent profit, while you are out the $420 you paid them and you still end up with two convictions on your record and an increase in insurance premiums.

If the company is giving you a "we win or it's free" guarantee, you should look at their guarantee closely. 99% of the time the guarantee will say that if they don't get the ticket tossed, then only your fine is free (meaning they'll pay it for you). You would still have to pay them the $420 up front, and they wouldn't refund that money to you if they lost (in spite of the fact that their guarantee makes it sound that way).

[nitro0610]

Hi guys,

Hope I don't get flamed for posting this....I already post similar entry at the other thread but I was asking about consequence of insurance hike on my ticket cuz I missed the court date.

But I need to ask something else here....here's long story short: I recently found out I missed my court date for a ticket of not wearing seatbelt. I filed to fight the ticket because I wasn't really NOT wearing the seatbelt!

I dropped my phone on a red light and I was expecting an important phone call from work that day. So I released the belt to reach for the phone. After that I immediately turned into ramp onto highway...the police actually saw me releasing the belt but still gave me a ticket anyway.

He said I can choose to fight it in court and explain to the judge and maybe I'll get lucky <= his exact words. Anyway, recently I've been extremely busy helping my folks move and naturally, with all that mess, my mails are misplaced everywhere. I actually found this letter in recycle bin today and to my surprise, it's a conviction letter telling me to pay my fines.

I guess I must've missed my court date or else I won't be getting this letter. Somebody already told me to call the court and have my case reopened....my question is....do you think they'll take my reason as valid and willing to reopen my case??

I just don't know if busy with moving and misplacing the letter is good enough of a reason for them....anybody with any advise or expertise in this matter? I would appreciate greatly for whatever wisdom you can share!

thanks in advance!

[Nikita]

Hi guys,

Hope I don't get flamed for posting this....I already post similar entry at the other thread but I was asking about consequence of insurance hike on my ticket cuz I missed the court date.

But I need to ask something else here....here's long story short: I recently found out I missed my court date for a ticket of not wearing seatbelt. I filed to fight the ticket because I wasn't really NOT wearing the seatbelt!

I dropped my phone on a red light and I was expecting an important phone call from work that day. So I released the belt to reach for the phone. After that I immediately turned into ramp onto highway...the police actually saw me releasing the belt but still gave me a ticket anyway.

He said I can choose to fight it in court and explain to the judge and maybe I'll get lucky <= his exact words. Anyway, recently I've been extremely busy helping my folks move and naturally, with all that mess, my mails are misplaced everywhere. I actually found this letter in recycle bin today and to my surprise, it's a conviction letter telling me to pay my fines.

I guess I must've missed my court date or else I won't be getting this letter. Somebody already told me to call the court and have my case reopened....my question is....do you think they'll take my reason as valid and willing to reopen my case??

I just don't know if busy with moving and misplacing the letter is good enough of a reason for them....anybody with any advise or expertise in this matter? I would appreciate greatly for whatever wisdom you can share!

thanks in advance!

Yes, I think you have more than a good chance of getting it re-opened. Requests to re-open are rarely denied, even for the lamest of excuses (not saying your reasons are lame, but I've seem some pretty lame ones used successfully). You've got nothing to lose by requesting it anyway, so I'd go for it.

[zloy]

a friend of mine who recently went to court (old city hall in toronto) told me that the cops are no longer required to show up and the case wouldn't be dropped automatically if they didn't come as it used to be.

his cop showed up and he got convicted without lesser fine, but he said other people were convicted as well without cops who ticketed them. strange, eh?

[h2o-]

a friend of mine who recentlywent to court (old city hall in toronto) told me that the cops are no longer required to show up and the case wouldn't be dropped automatically if they didn't come as it used to be.

his cop showed up and he got convicted without lesser fine, but he said other people were convicted as well without cops who ticketed them. strange, eh?

recently means when? I had mine dropped because of the cop no show. It was about 4 weeks ago, also Old City Hall court house.

[zloy]

recently means when? I had mine dropped because of the cop no show. It was about 4 weeks ago, also Old City Hall court house.

July 17, 2009 to be exact.

the reason I'm asking because I have a court date in December in the same court - not sure what to expect there and how to prepare...

[Nikita]

a friend of mine who recently went to court (old city hall in toronto) told me that the cops are no longer required to show up and the case wouldn't be dropped automatically if they didn't come as it used to be.

his cop showed up and he got convicted without lesser fine, but he said other people were convicted as well without cops who ticketed them. strange, eh?

That can only happen if you don't plead not guilty. There's no way a conviction can stand w/o evidence and the evidence has to be given under oath by the cop/witness, the Crown cannot put in evidence. Or if you don't show up, then you can be convicted in absentia w/o the Crown putting on any evidence.

Sounds more like you're friend screwed up somehow and consented or simply didn't show up when is name was called. Perhaps he found out the cop wasn't there and just left, which means when his case was called and he didn't appear the process doesn't need to go any further and be proven, you just get convicted in absentia. Or he left and then the cop showed up.

Lesson: Even if your cop isn't there, do not leave until your case is called and you are dismissed by the JP!

If by some bizarre chance, your friend was there and the cop didn't show and your friend was convicted, it would be clearly appealable with an excellent chance of success. Findings of guilt have to be proven based on evidence. Unless, like I said, he consented without realizing what he was consenting to.

[gamer123]

im starting to get court dates for tickets i filed >1yr ago :(

[nitro0610]

Yes, I think you have more than a good chance of getting it re-opened. Requests to re-open are rarely denied, even for the lamest of excuses (not saying your reasons are lame, but I've seem some pretty lame ones used successfully). You've got nothing to lose by requesting it anyway, so I'd go for it.


Thanks for your info but wow....met a tough prosecutor yesterday at the courthouse as I was trying to get my case re-opened. The JP I first talked to was really nice....re-opened my case on reasons of moving and asked if I want to talk to a prosecutor right away so I don't have to wait for another courtdate....who knows, maybe I'll get my ticket reduced or even waived.

Well, this woman was obviously not in a good mood when I talked to her....even after I told her my story (that I only released my seatbelt for a short while on a red light cuz I dropped my phone and was expecting an important call from office then the police saw me trying to put it back on as I turned onto the highway ramp right after the light)

She said it doesn't matter what reason I have...if I weren't wearing seatbelt then I violated the law. I asked if she can reduced the charges so I don't get hit with the points and she said NO....this is the lowest charge she can give me at that time. WFT?! I don't believe that for a minor conviction there's nothing she can do for me! urghh.....maybe she just don't like the way I look?! :confused:

So I ended up requesting a court date for retrial...and they gave me a court date for next year April, 2010?!?!?! :twisted: I can't believe for a minor ticket I have to wait 2 years after the actual offense date!!

My question is this....do you think I'll get a better chance of getting my charge reduced if I go for re-trial?? And what are the odds of police not showing up these days? It has been ages since I last attended court for a ticket and I'm nervous to be honest~

thanks for whatever advise any of you can give! :D

[Just thinking]

Thanks OP for the tips.

For all of you who dispute that traffice tickets are simply a way of ensuring public safety and not a cash grab, consider this.

If the city charged $5000 per speeding offence, even 1 km over the limit, I guarantee that everybody would slow down. Not the case. Pure and simple, it is to generate revenue.

Also, it is the difference in speed of traffic that causes the most accidents. If a driver is going 100 km/hr on the 401 (the posted limit), while everyone else is driving 125 km/hr, they are the ones driving unsafely. C'mon guys, we've all seen it.

I am not advocating driving like a maniac, but the the safest way to drive is to maintain the speed of traffic with those around you. Also, a great way to talk yourself out of a ticket if you happen to get pulled over.

IMHO

[actng]

If the city charged $5000 per speeding offence, even 1 km over the limit, I guarantee that everybody would slow down. Not the case. Pure and simple, it is to generate revenue.



not to be picky but... i doubt EVERYBODY would slow down.

most would. not all. some would be ignorant or would tempt fate (or the speed enforcers).

[spf1971]

Thanks OP for the tips.

For all of you who dispute that traffice tickets are simply a way of ensuring public safety and not a cash grab, consider this.

If the city charged $5000 per speeding offence, even 1 km over the limit, I guarantee that everybody would slow down. Not the case. Pure and simple, it is to generate revenue.

Also, it is the difference in speed of traffic that causes the most accidents. If a driver is going 100 km/hr on the 401 (the posted limit), while everyone else is driving 125 km/hr, they are the ones driving unsafely. C'mon guys, we've all seen it.

I am not advocating driving like a maniac, but the the safest way to drive is to maintain the speed of traffic with those around you. Also, a great way to talk yourself out of a ticket if you happen to get pulled over.

IMHO

What if they impounded your car and gave you a $5000 fine for going 50km/h over? Would you then guarantee nobody would drive 50km/h over?

[h2lam]

A friend of mine told me that if I were to put down on the trial form to request an interpreter for my speeding and parking ticket then it will delay my trial date to later since the court system would have to find a interpreter for my language. Is this a good strategy to use to delay your court date or even discourage them to the point that they might even not bother processing my parking or speeding ticket?

Does anyone know anything about regarding requesting an interpreter? Any feedback or advice on this matter?

[Nikita]

Thanks for your info but wow....met a tough prosecutor yesterday at the courthouse as I was trying to get my case re-opened. The JP I first talked to was really nice....re-opened my case on reasons of moving and asked if I want to talk to a prosecutor right away so I don't have to wait for another courtdate....who knows, maybe I'll get my ticket reduced or even waived.

Well, this woman was obviously not in a good mood when I talked to her....even after I told her my story (that I only released my seatbelt for a short while on a red light cuz I dropped my phone and was expecting an important call from office then the police saw me trying to put it back on as I turned onto the highway ramp right after the light)

She said it doesn't matter what reason I have...if I weren't wearing seatbelt then I violated the law. I asked if she can reduced the charges so I don't get hit with the points and she said NO....this is the lowest charge she can give me at that time. WFT?! I don't believe that for a minor conviction there's nothing she can do for me! urghh.....maybe she just don't like the way I look?! :confused:

So I ended up requesting a court date for retrial...and they gave me a court date for next year April, 2010?!?!?! :twisted: I can't believe for a minor ticket I have to wait 2 years after the actual offense date!!

My question is this....do you think I'll get a better chance of getting my charge reduced if I go for re-trial?? And what are the odds of police not showing up these days? It has been ages since I last attended court for a ticket and I'm nervous to be honest~

thanks for whatever advise any of you can give! :D

If you're going to trial, there's no getting the charge reduced. A trial has two outcomes, guilty or not guilty. However, you may well have a better chance at a plea to a lesser charge if you request another meeting with the prosecutor. Since you have plenty of time till your trial, you'll likely have a different prosecutor in any event so that on the day of trial, you still have an opportunity to talk to her/him and try to get a plea deal. Again, you've got nothing to lose. BTW, she's full of crap if she's telling you there's nothing else she can offer...this is NOT the 'lowest' charge she can give you.

Sorry for your bad experience, hopefully you'll have better luck next time.


What if they impounded your car and gave you a $5000 fine for going 50km/h over? Would you then guarantee nobody would drive 50km/h over?

Well capital punishment hasn't proven to reduce murders, so no, some people commit offenses no matter what the potential punishment. Logical no, but reality. The reason is, most criminals don't expect to get caught. Most drivers breaking traffic laws are the same, they don't expect to get caught. Jails are full of people who didn't expect to get caught. So, no I'd have to say increasing the penalty hasn't shown to work in criminal cases and likely won't help in traffic cases. I mean I hate to state the obvious but would anybody break the law if they thought they might get caught? Usually it's not about the potential consequences, cuz they're irrelevant if you don't get caught.

[h2lam]

I heard that those paralegal places don't really help you fight your ticket much. They just show up & plea to a lesser charge if they can or request to have your trial adjourned to delay it to a later date. I heard that most cops these days make pretty accurate reports so there's low chances of disclosures having issues that those paralegals can use to help you.

So far I found out that All Traffic Tickets cost $250 per case and charged.ca cost $420 per case.

I am debating if I should hire them to help me fight for my 1st speeding ticket which has already been reduced from 20KM to 10KM over in a 40 KM zone in downtown Toronto on Avenue Rd. There's no demerit points but I am afraid that my insurance will go up next yr thats why I am thinking of hiring someone to help me.

What do you think? Any feedback or advice?

[Nikita]

A friend of mine told me that if I were to put down on the trial form to request an interpreter for my speeding and parking ticket then it will delay my trial date to later since the court system would have to find a interpreter for my language. Is this a good strategy to use to delay your court date or even discourage them to the point that they might even not bother processing my parking or speeding ticket?

Does anyone know anything about regarding requesting an interpreter? Any feedback or advice on this matter?

Unless you speak pig latin, I doubt the court will have to delay further simply because you need a translator. They have a roster of translators, in fact many of them are in the court house daily. In the event they are needed right away, the matter may be stood down while they round one up. I've even seen them ask other counsel ( a good friend of mine was called on quite often) who speak other languages to act as translator just because he was well known to speak many languages and was almost alway somewhere in the courthhouse. So, even on short notice, it's not that hard to get a translator, with notice (which is proper to give) I doubt that will delay the trial to the point of a possible 11(b) breach.

[Nikita]

I heard that those paralegal places don't really help you fight your ticket much. They just show up & plea to a lesser charge if they can or request to have your trial adjourned to delay it to a later date. I heard that most cops these days make pretty accurate reports so there's low chances of disclosures having issues that those paralegals can use to help you.

So far I found out that All Traffic Tickets cost $250 per case and charged.ca cost $420 per case.

I am debating if I should hire them to help me fight for my 1st speeding ticket which has already been reduced from 20KM to 10KM over in a 40 KM zone in downtown Toronto on Avenue Rd. There's no demerit points but I am afraid that my insurance will go up next yr thats why I am thinking of hiring someone to help me.

What do you think? Any feedback or advice?

I think you'd be wasting your money. I doubt anybody is going to be able to negotiate a plea at <10K over. Unless you have a defense and want to go to trial and try for an outright acquittal, I personally see absolutely no use in paying that kind of money for a negotiation, which as I said IMHO wont' happen anyway.

Just my 2 cents.

[denim2375]

Alvito... none of teh links to the letters are working. Please help. I need to mail them asap. Thanks.

[h2lam]

I have a speeding ticket for going 15KM on a 40KM zone. I got the ticket b/c I was going 55KM on a 40KM zone. I remembered that the reason why I speed was the pass the person in front of me who was going so slow, then got caught by the cop radar gun.

Can I use the arguement saying that I speed to pass the person ahead?

Please advise...

[Lurknomore]

This is for all you free thinkers willing to exercise your rights.

http://www.zshare.net/download/75685753e8a0fa0a/

http://web.archive.org/web/20080612215539/http://www.magma.ca/~fyst/fyst0499.pdf

Lemme know if the the zshare link is dead and I'll upload it again.

[h2lam]

Alvito... none of teh links to the letters are working. Please help. I need to mail them asap. Thanks.

There's a link to get a sample Disclosure letter from TicketCombat.com

http://www.ticketcombat.com/step4/disclosurehow.php

[Pyro]

I got my letter for my First Attendance for this friday, and my lawyer said i shoudlnt go, and to go to trial so he can get the full disclosure

is this normal? im fighting a careless driving charge

if so do i need to call in and tell them I cant go to the First Attendance?

[JohnEnglish]

I have a speeding ticket for going 15KM on a 40KM zone. I got the ticket b/c I was going 55KM on a 40KM zone. I remembered that the reason why I speed was the pass the person in front of me who was going so slow, then got caught by the cop radar gun.

Can I use the arguement saying that I speed to pass the person ahead?

Please advise...Yes you can use that argument and you can also expect the judge to laugh at you after you explain that you were speeding in a school zone to pass someone.

[ctrueman82]

Well thought I would share my experience from court, wall of text incoming;

Charge of speeding from last year got tried in absentia in January. No notice of trial/conviction/fine/suspension was given so I had no idea until I got pulled over back in March that my license was even suspended, but thats another story. Point is I had my case reopened in late march by a JP, at that time I had a trial date issued for early May.

I requested disclosure (well detailed and to the point document) via registered mail 2 days after I received my new court date. Never received disclosure before court, so I went to court with this as my first line of defense.

Got called up and prosecutor told the JP that I wished to go to trial and that I had not filed for disclosure, and offered to let me see the cops notes. I went out with the cop and declined the notes on the basis that I had made a proper request for disclosure previously and theres no point in reviewing his notes for 5 minutes and then attempting to defend myself. Cop tells the prosecutor that I declined the notes and that I requested disclosure, prosecutor makes a comment that I'm 'just playing games'.

Back in court i tell the JP I had correctly filed for disclosure 5 weeks prior and received nothing from the proscecution. Prosecutor tried to play a game of 'I don't have your file requesting disclosure here'. I mention I have a receipt from Canada Post proving I sent it via registered mail and that I have a copy of said document with me. Prosecutor suddenly 'finds' my request at the bottom of her papers. Makes a grand stand about how 5 weeks is not enough time to get my disclosure request processed. JP looks at me, and I tell him the prosecutors office issued this date for trial, I didn't pick it. If they needed more time to process disclosure they should have thought about that before giving me such a date. Prosecutor holds head and lets out a loud obnoxious sigh.

Prosecutor again sends me out with the cop, where I again decline to review his notes on the grounds that it would be insufficient time to prepare my defense if i did so. Back in court the prosecutor starts crying about how I've been given 2 opportunities to review the evidence and I've declined both times. I explain to the JP that I have a right to a fair time to review the evidence and 5 minutes outside the court while prosecution has had a whole month hardly seems fair. JP argues that prosecution has offered me evidence, I counter that prosecution has not told me its the only evidence available. I explain that I wish the prosecutor to acknowledge its the only evidence and witness to be used against me in court and that I be given a fair time to review the information. JP tells me that he doesn't see due diligence on my part as I was fairly lax in only filing 5 weeks prior to trial. I again remind JP that I did not pick the trial date and did send my request 2 days after I received my trial date. JP agrees I did the best I could and asks prosecutor what can we do.

Prosecutor is visibly upset by this point, tells the cop to go photocopy his notes and that we will reschedule a trial date in a few weeks. Prosecutor further agrees this is the only witness and evidence to be used. Cop comes back with his notes, JP asks me if I find them legible; which I do. We reschedule and prosecutor looks over at me and says 'I intend to see this through to the end."

First time in court and I found it rather amusing, or should I say I found the prosecutors crying and complaining amusing. Like I'm being given a favour to see the cops notes so I can defend myself, not only that but I was given the chance twice! Hey not like I didn't already ask to see them weeks ago, among other evidence. Does this stuff really fly with average joe on the street? I hope my little episode may help others who go through this.

On another note the JP was great. Very nice and commented after court that I was extremely articulate and presented a good case. He also tried to get me to settle with the prosecutor before I left, to which I said; Id be happy to settle with the prosecution if they would agree to a stay on the proceedings due to a violation of Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 7 (disclosure). JP looked like he wanted to laugh and the prosecutor just glared at me.

Also, when the prosecutor made the 'im just playing games comment' towards me, the cop agreed and said 'i hate people who play games'. Dur?! Heaven forbid someone try to defend himself officer, be happy that you just made $35 for sitting in court and then photo copying some notes.

Finally I was surprised at the number of cops vs defendants. One third of the room was cops and maybe 15 defendants ever showed. That being said I would say I saw about 8 or 9 cases thrown out due to a cop not being present.

Good learning experience if anything.

[chanman]

ctrueman82 - that's awesome. Thanks for sharing your experience. I'm sure others will find this very handy in knowing what to expect in court and knowing how to deal with the prosecutor. One question - did you actually file a motion too for the case to be stayed on the basis of improper disclosure?

[ctrueman82]

Yes, i did actually file for dismissal on 11b and 7 of the Charter 2 weeks before trial date. I figured 5 weeks wouldn't be enough to get my disclosure through.
I did not bring up the motion today because I didn't feel the JP was very sympathetic to quashing the proceedings based on a lax issuance of disclosure. That and the fact it was technically my 2nd time at bat (through no fault of my own), I decided to let it be.

In retrospect I think I should have let the prosecutor take me to trial and made a motion to stay proceedings based on the fact that I had little to no time to prepare my defense (maybe Nikita or someone else with some law experience can weigh in here). But I think it would end up being very technical and don't think I had enough confidence to wade into that on the first go. So sadly now that I've been given 3 weeks I can't use that when I go back to trial. Also, I made the mistake of letting the prosecutor and the cop pick the date, I should have picked a date more accommodating to myself as its their fault we had to reschedule anyways.

Still reeling at the attitude of the prosecutor and the cop, ridiculous.

[zloy]

Yes, i did actually file for dismissal on 11b and 7 of the Charter 2 weeks before trial date. I figured 5 weeks wouldn't be enough to get my disclosure through.
I did not bring up the motion today because I didn't feel the JP was very sympathetic to quashing the proceedings based on a lax issuance of disclosure. That and the fact it was technically my 2nd time at bat (through no fault of my own), I decided to let it be.

In retrospect I think I should have let the prosecutor take me to trial and made a motion to stay proceedings based on the fact that I had little to no time to prepare my defense (maybe Nikita or someone else with some law experience can weigh in here). But I think it would end up being very technical and don't think I had enough confidence to wade into that on the first go. So sadly now that I've been given 3 weeks I can't use that when I go back to trial. Also, I made the mistake of letting the prosecutor and the cop pick the date, I should have picked a date more accommodating to myself as its their fault we had to reschedule anyways.

Still reeling at the attitude of the prosecutor and the cop, ridiculous.

wow! ctrueman82, you're THE MAN! I admire your courage to stand up to prosecutor-a$$hole. I wish my english was as good as yours to be able to talk in court like you did.

my trial for speeding and seatbelt last fall was quick as I agreed to lesser fine and one conviction only, but I stayed in court all the way to see how other people defend themselves and how the whole system works. It's actually quite entertaining and amusing.

my advice to anyone who's scheduled for trial - go to the court before your day and just sit and watch :)

anyway, looking forward to reading about your next trial. cheers!

[sunset_orange]

Well thought I would share my experience from court, wall of text incoming;

Charge of speeding from last year got tried in absentia in January. No notice of trial/conviction/fine/suspension was given so I had no idea until I got pulled over back in March that my license was even suspended, but thats another story. Point is I had my case reopened in late march by a JP, at that time I had a trial date issued for early May.

I requested disclosure (well detailed and to the point document) via registered mail 2 days after I received my new court date. Never received disclosure before court, so I went to court with this as my first line of defense.

Got called up and prosecutor told the JP that I wished to go to trial and that I had not filed for disclosure, and offered to let me see the cops notes. I went out with the cop and declined the notes on the basis that I had made a proper request for disclosure previously and theres no point in reviewing his notes for 5 minutes and then attempting to defend myself. Cop tells the prosecutor that I declined the notes and that I requested disclosure, prosecutor makes a comment that I'm 'just playing games'.

Back in court i tell the JP I had correctly filed for disclosure 5 weeks prior and received nothing from the proscecution. Prosecutor tried to play a game of 'I don't have your file requesting disclosure here'. I mention I have a receipt from Canada Post proving I sent it via registered mail and that I have a copy of said document with me. Prosecutor suddenly 'finds' my request at the bottom of her papers. Makes a grand stand about how 5 weeks is not enough time to get my disclosure request processed. JP looks at me, and I tell him the prosecutors office issued this date for trial, I didn't pick it. If they needed more time to process disclosure they should have thought about that before giving me such a date. Prosecutor holds head and lets out a loud obnoxious sigh.

Prosecutor again sends me out with the cop, where I again decline to review his notes on the grounds that it would be insufficient time to prepare my defense if i did so. Back in court the prosecutor starts crying about how I've been given 2 opportunities to review the evidence and I've declined both times. I explain to the JP that I have a right to a fair time to review the evidence and 5 minutes outside the court while prosecution has had a whole month hardly seems fair. JP argues that prosecution has offered me evidence, I counter that prosecution has not told me its the only evidence available. I explain that I wish the prosecutor to acknowledge its the only evidence and witness to be used against me in court and that I be given a fair time to review the information. JP tells me that he doesn't see due diligence on my part as I was fairly lax in only filing 5 weeks prior to trial. I again remind JP that I did not pick the trial date and did send my request 2 days after I received my trial date. JP agrees I did the best I could and asks prosecutor what can we do.

Prosecutor is visibly upset by this point, tells the cop to go photocopy his notes and that we will reschedule a trial date in a few weeks. Prosecutor further agrees this is the only witness and evidence to be used. Cop comes back with his notes, JP asks me if I find them legible; which I do. We reschedule and prosecutor looks over at me and says 'I intend to see this through to the end."

First time in court and I found it rather amusing, or should I say I found the prosecutors crying and complaining amusing. Like I'm being given a favour to see the cops notes so I can defend myself, not only that but I was given the chance twice! Hey not like I didn't already ask to see them weeks ago, among other evidence. Does this stuff really fly with average joe on the street? I hope my little episode may help others who go through this.

On another note the JP was great. Very nice and commented after court that I was extremely articulate and presented a good case. He also tried to get me to settle with the prosecutor before I left, to which I said; Id be happy to settle with the prosecution if they would agree to a stay on the proceedings due to a violation of Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 7 (disclosure). JP looked like he wanted to laugh and the prosecutor just glared at me.

Also, when the prosecutor made the 'im just playing games comment' towards me, the cop agreed and said 'i hate people who play games'. Dur?! Heaven forbid someone try to defend himself officer, be happy that you just made $35 for sitting in court and then photo copying some notes.

Finally I was surprised at the number of cops vs defendants. One third of the room was cops and maybe 15 defendants ever showed. That being said I would say I saw about 8 or 9 cases thrown out due to a cop not being present.

Good learning experience if anything.

That is just awesome, made them work for their pay cheque!

Excellent job, which court house is this?

[chanman]

In retrospect I think I should have let the prosecutor take me to trial and made a motion to stay proceedings based on the fact that I had little to no time to prepare my defense (maybe Nikita or someone else with some law experience can weigh in here). But I think it would end up being very technical and don't think I had enough confidence to wade into that on the first go. So sadly now that I've been given 3 weeks I can't use that when I go back to trial. Also, I made the mistake of letting the prosecutor and the cop pick the date, I should have picked a date more accommodating to myself as its their fault we had to reschedule anyways.

Too bad - making a motion for a stay might have been worthwhile in this case. Still a tip of the hat to you for handling yourself so well and sharing your experience with us! Yeah, the theatrics of the prosecutor and cop sounded like they were quite something. It sounds like a well worn routine they pull whenever they encounter someone who actually seeks to go to trial. Best of luck with your trial in a few weeks.

[new_vr]

"you did the crime u do the time"

[ctrueman82]

wow! ctrueman82, you're THE MAN! I admire your courage to stand up to prosecutor-a$$hole. I wish my english was as good as yours to be able to talk in court like you did.

my trial for speeding and seatbelt last fall was quick as I agreed to lesser fine and one conviction only, but I stayed in court all the way to see how other people defend themselves and how the whole system works. It's actually quite entertaining and amusing.

my advice to anyone who's scheduled for trial - go to the court before your day and just sit and watch :)

anyway, looking forward to reading about your next trial. cheers!

Yeah I agree entertaining and amusing. Since the cops notes are all in order and I don't see another way out at this point I don't know if I'll just plead guilty and not waste everyones time. I may go through the trial portion just to see what its like and get some more experience.

Appreciate the comments.

[ctrueman82]

That is just awesome, made them work for their pay cheque!

Excellent job, which court house is this?

Thanks, I agree if they want my money they can all do their jobs properly to get it.

60 Queen Street West, Old City Hall

[ctrueman82]

Too bad - making a motion for a stay might have been worthwhile in this case. Still a tip of the hat to you for handling yourself so well and sharing your experience with us! Yeah, the theatrics of the prosecutor and cop sounded like they were quite something. It sounds like a well worn routine they pull whenever they encounter someone who actually seeks to go to trial. Best of luck with your trial in a few weeks.

Agreed, but as they say hindsight is always 20/20, chalk one up for learning though. Also I feel I learned a nice tactic for dealing with any future issues of prosecutors 'misplacing' my file for disclosure;

I'll say I filed for it, if prosecutor states she doesn't 'see' it I'll ask to confirm. If she confirms I will then ask her to check her papers. Assuming she again confirms she doesn't have it I'll then state I have evidence in form of receipt/copy etc and force her hand. She can either deny she ever got it, oh well I proved I made the attempt and point for me. Or she can admit she suddenly found it under paperwork or whatever (which to me should speak volumes to the JP about prosecutors conduct).

Come to think of it, since I can prove I filed it, if the prosecutor does have on record my file and does not show it in court would that constitute withholding evidence or something along the lines? I understand the initial refrain on her part as why should she show it if I can't prove it on my end. But by not showing it when I can prove it, is she wrongly trying to cover up 'evidence'?

[ctrueman82]

"you did the crime u do the time"

What is this a joke?

"Guilty until proven innocent."

[new_vr]

What is this a joke?

"Guilty until proven innocent."
Firstly, most people are guilty when it comes to traffic infractions, and are just looking for a technicality to get off on.
But my comment was because the OP said not to say that, hence the quotes. You can't post something on the internet and tell people only to agree with you.

[Nikita]

"you did the crime u do the time"

See that's what are system is all about...due process is there not only to ensure fairness, but to ensure that one actually did do the crime. Until a court says so, 'you didn't do the crime'.

[gilboman]

Firstly, most people are guilty when it comes to traffic infractions, and are just looking for a technicality to get off on.
But my comment was because the OP said not to say that, hence the quotes. You can't post something on the internet and tell people only to agree with you.

umm... and the people who get off on a technicality have every right to get off on that technicality. There are rules/process in place for a reason, this isn't the wild wild west where we wing it. If the people who's job is to ensure compilance with laws, they should at very least have the decency to follow it, and if they bothered to do so, people wouldnt get off on technicalities.

[Nikita]

Firstly, most people are guilty when it comes to traffic infractions, and are just looking for a technicality to get off on.
But my comment was because the OP said not to say that, hence the quotes. You can't post something on the internet and tell people only to agree with you.

Do you even know what a 'technicality' is? For example, Charter breaches are not technicalities.


umm... and the people who get off on a technicality have every right to get off on that technicality. There are rules/process in place for a reason, this isn't the wild wild west where we wing it. If the people who's job is to ensure compilance with laws, they should at very least have the decency to follow it, and if they bothered to do so, people wouldnt get off on technicalities.

+1 The courts are not only tasked with ensuring the 'law' is followed, but also with ensuring the 'process/procedures' are followed. If they aren't, someone gets off, but not on a technicality, rather on a breach of process or procedure, without which, as gilboman coined so well, we'd have a wild wild west (or even a dictatorship) type of system. Those have been tried, they failed. There are very important policy reasons for those so-called technicalites. Further, they are the easiest part of a cops job to do right in order to avoid people getting off. If they can't do that right, an acquittal is entirely appropriate, in fact in a civilized democracy, the only way to ensure those 'technicalities' are followed.

[ctrueman82]

As expected my summons for driving while under suspended license was withdrawn in court today.

Because I had a JP strike out my conviction of speeding (as I had received no notice of trial) the suspension that followed was deemed null and void. Spoke to prosecutor before entering the court room, showed strike out of conviction documents and it was withdrawn instantly.

Had some fun watching a few people before me plead guilty to driving without insurance. One guy said he made over $30/hr, but claimed he was poor and didn't make much money so he wanted 2 years to pay the fine and was unhappy that the JP only lowered it to $3000 from $5000. Another guy was drinking water in court, got told to throw it out. Then TWICE was caught texting on his phone, once by the JP once by the clerk and got told to leave the court room. Before he left he told the JP "he needed to work".

Do people not realize that the JP is the one person you do not want to piss off in that room?:confused:

[new_vr]

See that's what are system is all about...due process is there not only to ensure fairness, but to ensure that one actually did do the crime. Until a court says so, 'you didn't do the crime'.

I'm sorry, but I have read too many threads on this board from someone who admits being guilty, but is looking for a way out. It really seems who ever can afford the good lawyers gets a more fair system then the people who can't.

[chanman]

Come to think of it, since I can prove I filed it, if the prosecutor does have on record my file and does not show it in court would that constitute withholding evidence or something along the lines? I understand the initial refrain on her part as why should she show it if I can't prove it on my end. But by not showing it when I can prove it, is she wrongly trying to cover up 'evidence'?

This sounds like it'd be a great example you can use to argue with the JP that your case should be stayed on the grounds of improper disclosure. If they had the disclosure request, claimed that they didn't have it, but then 'magically' produced it when their hand got forced, you could try jumping all over that. Because it's obvious their whole "I never got the disclosure request" line is pretty fishy to start with.

[gilboman]

I'm sorry, but I have read too many threads on this board from someone who admits being guilty, but is looking for a way out. It really seems who ever can afford the good lawyers gets a more fair system then the people who can't.

If the people just did their jobs, this wouldnt happen. The supposed "guardians" of the justice system need to be held to a standard, at the very least, be able to follow their own system.

Guilt is irrelevent, it's the means that you find that out that is. If you did a house to house search of every household, you will get all sorts of convictions, but that's not tolerated since we have the right to not be reasonably searched. The ends definitely do not justify the means.

if you're so concerned with finding guilty party regardless of how it's achieved, then canada definitely isn't for you since we follow laws here and have a basic charter of rights and freedoms.

[new_vr]

If the people just did their jobs, this wouldnt happen. The supposed "guardians" of the justice system need to be held to a standard, at the very least, be able to follow their own system.


If you are expecting a civil servant to maintain a standard..well that's just not going to happen..



if you're so concerned with finding guilty party regardless of how it's achieved, then canada definitely isn't for you since we follow laws here and have a basic charter of rights and freedoms.
Don't put words in my mouth. And to call my patriotism into question is pathetic, even for you. I never said I am so concerned about finding them guilty. I just don't like a system where whoever can afford the better lawyers isn't guilty and the peole who can't afford them are guilty.
If there is anything I don't like about this country it's how bad the drivers are. I had friend with me from Holland yesterday and they hate driving on the 400 series highways, because there is absolutely no respect for the laws. They have no issues on the autobahn, but hate it here. People don't care about the speed limit, and worse, pass on any side they choose.. If you want to see the wild west, that is it.

[gilboman]

If you are expecting a civil servant to maintain a standard..well that's just not going to happen..


Don't put words in my mouth. And to call my patriotism into question is pathetic, even for you. I never said I am so concerned about finding them guilty. I just don't like a system where whoever can afford the better lawyers isn't guilty and the peole who can't afford them are guilty.
If there is anything I don't like about this country it's how bad the drivers are. I had friend with me from Holland yesterday and they hate driving on the 400 series highways, because there is absolutely no respect for the laws. They have no issues on the autobahn, but hate it here. People don't care about the speed limit, and worse, pass on any side they choose.. If you want to see the wild west, that is it.

If we can't expect the supposed guardians of the justice system to do their jobs properly, we should just throw out due process?

I'm not the one putting words in your mouth, it's quite the opposite. I never questioned your patriotism eventhough your disregard for due process is in blatant conflict with the charter. You don't like the system, which is fine, but because you don't like the system, you think people should just not be entititled to their rights guaranteed to them and just lump them as guilty?

What do you propose then?

[h2lam]

If you guys ever need a paralegal to represent you in court b/c you don't want to take the day off. I know a guy that will charge only $75 to go to court on your behalf. Most places like Xcopper charge $450 per case so this guy is much cheaper.

I plan to go to court myself to save $75 since I have the time now. These paralegal, all they do is go to court on your behalf and plea to a lesser charge or switch the court date to a different date to hope that the cop don't show up on the 2nd court date.

The only trick in the book to get off the hook is if the cop don't show up. If you got a traffic ticket from a trap where the officer is pulling ppl over all day, then the cop will be in court as they are part of a special task force. So what those paralegal ppl do is:

1) plea guilty for you for a lesser charge

2) switch the original court date by appearing in court on that day and saying that you can't make it to ask for a different court date, then they would hope that the cop don't show up on the 2nd date. You can do all this yourself but some ppl just rather hire someone else to avoid the hassle and time off work....This is the only want to get off the hook. Cops don't make mistakes on disclosures or anything like that much anymore....Extremely rare and slim chance that you can argue back in court to get off the hook. I went to court for a half a date and observed and found all this out :)

Hope this helps you all who have court dates coming up :)

[Nikita]

I'm sorry, but I have read too many threads on this board from someone who admits being guilty, but is looking for a way out. It really seems who ever can afford the good lawyers gets a more fair system then the people who can't.

"It really seems" that way, but in most cases it's a myth.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, just because someone says they did something doesn't mean they're guilty, it often means they aren't aware of a defense that makes them not guilty. An extreme example is someone can say "I killed him". That doesn't mean he committed an offense. That doesn't mean he commited 'murder'. There are defenses (accident, provocation, self-defense etc etc etc) that make "I killed someone" a simple killing, but not a murder.

So someone saying they did it doesn't end the matter, legally speaking. It's simply not the be-all-end-all you seem to think it is.



If you are expecting a civil servant to maintain a standard..well that's just not going to happen..




If you're going to lump all 'civil servants' (iow people who work in the government sector) together, your really missing something. There's a huge distinction between a Judges and a bureaucrat who does nothing but push paper all day. So while I may not want to put my legal future into the hands of a paper pusher, I feel very different about Judges, and I think most people do.

[zloy]

If you guys ever need a paralegal to represent you in court b/c you don't want to take the day off. I know a guy that will charge only $75 to go to court on your behalf. Most places like Xcopper charge $450 per case so this guy is much cheaper.

I plan to go to court myself to save $75 since I have the time now. These paralegal, all they do is go to court on your behalf and plea to a lesser charge or switch the court date to a different date to hope that the cop don't show up on the 2nd court date.

The only trick in the book to get off the hook is if the cop don't show up. If you got a traffic ticket from a trap where the officer is pulling ppl over all day, then the cop will be in court as they are part of a special task force. So what those paralegal ppl do is:

1) plea guilty for you for a lesser charge

2) switch the original court date by appearing in court on that day and saying that you can't make it to ask for a different court date, then they would hope that the cop don't show up on the 2nd date. You can do all this yourself but some ppl just rather hire someone else to avoid the hassle and time off work....This is the only want to get off the hook. Cops don't make mistakes on disclosures or anything like that much anymore....Extremely rare and slim chance that you can argue back in court to get off the hook. I went to court for a half a date and observed and found all this out :)

Hope this helps you all who have court dates coming up :)

+1 everything you said.

and one more paralegal' trick that I noticed in the court - they play the disclosure card, saying that sent a request and never got a disclosure before court day. this would let them re-schedule the day, hoping for cop no-show...

[ph00p]

Just got a ticket in Newfoundland and it says "speeding in a 100km zone" there isn't a speed listed is there a way to determine the amount I'm going to be charged? It's my first time and I'm a novice, any advice? It was a ghost car that pulled me over.




Edit:
I found out that is section 110, 3(d) which is 31 over the limit.

[vero95]

Just got a ticket in Newfoundland and it says "speeding in a 100km zone" there isn't a speed listed is there a way to determine the amount I'm going to be charged? It's my first time and I'm a novice, any advice? It was a ghost car that pulled me over.




Edit:
I found out that is section 110, 3(d) which is 31 over the limit.

I do not understand your post. are you saying there is no speed on the ticket?

[ph00p]

I do not understand your post. are you saying there is no speed on the ticket?


The speed is not written on the ticket but I looked up the legislation he wrote on the ticket and it denotes 31 over.

Edit: Great so this is my first ticket I got it leaving the passing lane after being boxed in by 2 terrible drivers on my rear and front. I've lost 4 of my 6 points as a novice the traffic act says I can't appeal it either.

[vero95]

plead no guilty and ask for disclosure when you receive the court date. you will know more details
you can most probably get the speed reduced before the trial or if the cop is not there, you win

[ph00p]

plead no guilty and ask for disclosure when you receive the court date. you will know more details
you can most probably get the speed reduced before the trial or if the cop is not there, you win

Thank you! Sounds good!

[vero95]

Thank you! Sounds good!

I have not heard about speeding ticket with no speed written on the ticket so check it out if it's at all valid
I am not an expert. you can call paralegals and ask them. it's free. that's what I would do

[actng]

I am not an expert. you can call paralegals and ask them. it's free. that's what I would do

really? you're not an expert? i thought you worked in the industry?

you give a lot of advice for someone who isn't an expert...

[vero95]

really? you're not an expert? i thought you worked in the industry?

you give a lot of advice for someone who isn't an expert...

calm down christina, I gave same advice as you were giving
at least I admit I am not an expert

[trajancavalous]

"It really seems" that way, but in most cases it's a myth.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, just because someone says they did something doesn't mean they're guilty, it often means they aren't aware of a defense that makes them not guilty. An extreme example is someone can say "I killed him". That doesn't mean he committed an offense. That doesn't mean he commited 'murder'. There are defenses (accident, provocation, self-defense etc etc etc) that make "I killed someone" a simple killing, but not a murder.

So someone saying they did it doesn't end the matter, legally speaking. It's simply not the be-all-end-all you seem to think it is.




If you're going to lump all 'civil servants' (iow people who work in the government sector) together, your really missing something. There's a huge distinction between a Judges and a bureaucrat who does nothing but push paper all day. So while I may not want to put my legal future into the hands of a paper pusher, I feel very different about Judges, and I think most people do.

Good post.

I have encountered many people who think exercising their rights or simply defending themselves is some kind of cheat. And I've met many who humbly accept others violating their rights. Such behavior is unfathomable to me.

[vero95]

^ thanks for reminding that
some ppl on this forum claim it's unmoral to fight tickets

[Whitedart]

I have not heard about speeding ticket with no speed written on the ticket so check it out if it's at all valid
I am not an expert. you can call paralegals and ask them. it's free. that's what I would do

That person is also in NL where a different traffic act applies, so any rules or procedures for Ontario will not necessarily apply.

[sky888]

i got my first speeding ticket last night, driving from wasaga beach to barrie, i believe its highway 92, theres only 1 lane on each side. i was i driving around 100-110 in the 80km/h zone(not sure, theres no light on the road). opp was driving on the opposite side, i didnt see him, i was driving around 100-110, he pull a u-turn n start following me, the first action i did is to slowed down to around 90km. he followed around 2mins, he pull me over and gave me a ticket for driving 116 in 80km zone,$271 fine, but doesnt say any points reduction. i will fight this ticket, but the problem is the court is in barrie, and i live in scarb.

now what should i do?? fight this myself or hire paralegal in barrie to fight for me??
thanks

[rla_z]

ITT: poor people who can't afford to pay tickets they rightly deserve trying to find ways to weasel their way out.

[longitude]

Thank you! Sounds good!

This site is for Ontario, but it has good tips.

http://www.ticketcombat.com/step1/step1.php

[TCWeasel]

I got a speeding ticket on the weekend, 65 in a 50, reduced from 74. I wasn't really paying much attention so I can not attest to whether I was doing that speed or not. It's entirely possible I was. My mind was otherwise occupied, which is probably not a good defense of anything when you're driving.

Last ticket was about 6 or 7 years ago, been with the insurance company for about 20 years.

Is it something I should just suck up and pay, or would it be worth my time? It's not a particularly large fine, though the preventativeness of it annoys the hell out of me having to pay it.

It may seem rather a small charge, but my brain and the way it functions has turned this into a full blown crisis and it completely ruined my weekend. My mind is still replaying the whole thing over and over, I can't seem to get away from it. I'm obsessing over it. I know this may sound cliche-ish, but I'm not a speeder. Yes I will go over the speed limit, but I rarely go much above it.

[Mr.Sea]

TCWeasel, that feeling will go away over time when you forget about it. But it may come back every now and again when you remember it.

You should take this to court, and if you court date is longer than 12 months from the offense date, send letters to the courthouse, prosecutor and attorney general stating that you're right to a fair and prompt trial has been breached. You can find it in the charter as 11b.

When you state the prejudious against you (why is it unfair and lengthy) state that you've been living with anxiety with regards to it for 12 months. Say even though it was a small charge you felt bad about it because you've been driving for 20 years and have only had 1 other ticket.

Also, if you file for a court date, request disclosure, if its not given to you its another way to have the charges dropped.


Read the original post in this thread, it might be helpful!

[tigger03]

^ thanks for reminding that
some ppl on this forum claim it's unmoral to fight tickets

You could say that I'm one of those ppl, but let me explain:

IMMORAL:
- I'm taking it to court with the hope that the officer doesn't show up. This clogs up the system, and takes those cops out from being able to help people with calls for service on the road, to sitting in a court for a few hours.
- If you did the crime, pay the time. If you didn't complete a full stop at the stop sign, or knew you were speeding, just pay the damn ticket. Or choose one of those other options like Pleading guilty with an explanation.
- If you didn't change your validation tag and now have a ticket, who's fault is THAT?
- Speeding is speeding. Even if you're ONE kilometer over the posted speed limit, you're SPEEDING. Just b/c rumour has it that some cops don't pull people over if they're doing 19km or less over the speed limit, you're STILL speeding!

I'm not talking about criminal court, where from a murder it could drop down to manslaughter. I'm talking about a TRAFFIC TICKET and fighting those in court. I'm specifically talking about people who KNOW they're in the wrong, yet "take their chance" in court hoping "the cop won't show up". THAT is IMMORAL.

[vero95]

You could say that I'm one of those ppl, but let me explain:

IMMORAL:
- I'm taking it to court with the hope that the officer doesn't show up. This clogs up the system, and takes those cops out from being able to help people with calls for service on the road, to sitting in a court for a few hours.
- If you did the crime, pay the time. If you didn't complete a full stop at the stop sign, or knew you were speeding, just pay the damn ticket. Or choose one of those other options like Pleading guilty with an explanation.
- If you didn't change your validation tag and now have a ticket, who's fault is THAT?
- Speeding is speeding. Even if you're ONE kilometer over the posted speed limit, you're SPEEDING. Just b/c rumour has it that some cops don't pull people over if they're doing 19km or less over the speed limit, you're STILL speeding!

I'm not talking about criminal court, where from a murder it could drop down to manslaughter. I'm talking about a TRAFFIC TICKET and fighting those in court. I'm specifically talking about people who KNOW they're in the wrong, yet "take their chance" in court hoping "the cop won't show up". THAT is IMMORAL.

feel free to give up your right to fight your tickets. it's your decision
however, I wouldn't call immoral those who do fight their tickets even if they say they are just taking their chances because I would never be sure of their real motives. therefore I would rather let the justice system make the decision if they are guilty or not
btw, if speeding is going just one kilometer over the posted limit which practically does not give you much room not to commit an offence of speeding, how moral is that? you would need to go 10-20kmh below the limit to follow the law, wouldn't you? are you driving like that?

[tigger03]

feel free to give up your right to fight your tickets. it's your decision
however, I wouldn't call immoral those who do fight their tickets even if they say they are just taking their chances because I would never be sure of their real motives. therefore I would rather let the justice system make the decision if they are guilty or not
btw, if speeding is going just one kilometer over the posted limit which practically does not give you much room not to commit an offence of speeding, how moral is that? you would need to go 10-20kmh below the limit to follow the law, wouldn't you? are you driving like that?

I'm not talking about my RIGHT to fight speeding tickets. I'm talking whether it's MORAL or IMMORAL to fight traffic tickets when you KNOW you're in the wrong (i.e. guilty of the stated offence). "Taking your chance" is immoral. You're taking a police officer off the street, where he/she could be responding to 911 calls, or other calls for help: assaults, accidents, domestics, etc etc -- people that actually NEED and REQUIRE a police officer. Instead, you're "taking a chance" hoping that a particular police officer would drop everything to show up to court. THAT is immoral, ESPECIALLY if you're guilty, and your intentions are to see if the police officer would show up to court.

I'm not talking about the morality of speeding. I'm saying that many people here think that they weren't "speeding" as they were going "only 15 km over the posted speed limit". My point is that if you're even ONE kilometer over the speed limit, you're TECHNICALLY (I repeat, "technically") speeding. I'm no saint at driving by following all posted speed limits, but I have my morals in order: if I'm guilty of speeding, I'll pay the ticket.

[DrXenon]

but I have my morals in order: if I'm guilty of speeding, I'll pay the ticket.

Paying the ticket just encourages the Man to set up more speed traps at the transition from 80 to 50, or at the bottom of a hill. Speed qua speed is not dangerous. What's dangerous is tailgating and aggressive driving, but that's more difficult to enforce so they stick to speed traps. Nothing arouses more contempt in the cop heart than sheep like you who pay their random road tax willingly. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

[longitude]

Paying the ticket just encourages the Man to set up more speed traps at the transition from 80 to 50, or at the bottom of a hill. Speed qua speed is not dangerous. What's dangerous is tailgating and aggressive driving, but that's more difficult to enforce so they stick to speed traps. Nothing arouses more contempt in the cop heart than sheep like you who pay their random road tax willingly. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Zing!

[vero95]

Paying the ticket just encourages the Man to set up more speed traps at the transition from 80 to 50, or at the bottom of a hill. Speed qua speed is not dangerous. What's dangerous is tailgating and aggressive driving, but that's more difficult to enforce so they stick to speed traps. Nothing arouses more contempt in the cop heart than sheep like you who pay their random road tax willingly. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

+1
so what if people use the law to their advantage? so do the cops

[vero95]

I'm not talking about my RIGHT to fight speeding tickets. I'm talking whether it's MORAL or IMMORAL to fight traffic tickets when you KNOW you're in the wrong (i.e. guilty of the stated offence). "Taking your chance" is immoral. You're taking a police officer off the street, where he/she could be responding to 911 calls, or other calls for help: assaults, accidents, domestics, etc etc -- people that actually NEED and REQUIRE a police officer. Instead, you're "taking a chance" hoping that a particular police officer would drop everything to show up to court. THAT is immoral, ESPECIALLY if you're guilty, and your intentions are to see if the police officer would show up to court.

I'm not talking about the morality of speeding. I'm saying that many people here think that they weren't "speeding" as they were going "only 15 km over the posted speed limit". My point is that if you're even ONE kilometer over the speed limit, you're TECHNICALLY (I repeat, "technically") speeding. I'm no saint at driving by following all posted speed limits, but I have my morals in order: if I'm guilty of speeding, I'll pay the ticket.

don't be so concerned about wasting officers time at court. they ask people to take tickets to court to get extra pay. I do not even want to start if that's moral

Under the Toronto Police Association collective agreement, police officers who attend court as witnesses during a scheduled off day are paid a minimum four hours, at 1.5 times their basic wage, even if the appearance lasts 10 minutes. Officers receive three hours of pay at time and a half if they appear in court before a scheduled shift.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/crime/police/article/782892--don-t-use-on-duty-police-officers

I repeat there is nothing immoral in executing your right to fight a ticket

[tigger03]

Paying the ticket just encourages the Man to set up more speed traps at the transition from 80 to 50, or at the bottom of a hill. Speed qua speed is not dangerous. What's dangerous is tailgating and aggressive driving, but that's more difficult to enforce so they stick to speed traps. Nothing arouses more contempt in the cop heart than sheep like you who pay their random road tax willingly. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Ashamed of myself?! There's a reason there are laws in place. People like you ought to be ticketed more often. And you're the expert about speed not being dangerous?! I'm not even going to get STARTED on that!


don't be so concerned about wasting officers time at court. they ask people to take tickets to court to get extra pay. I do not even want to start if that's moral

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/crime/police/article/782892--don-t-use-on-duty-police-officers

I repeat there is nothing immoral in executing your right to fight a ticket

There are a lot of cops in UNIFORM on their day shift who are in court. Yes, off duty officers get paid extra to be in court, but I'm referring to the cops who are in court ON DUTY on a day shift -- who have to come off the road to attend court, and then go back on the road. I'm still stand corrected on fighting ALL tickets are being immoral.

[vero95]

Ashamed of myself?! There's a reason there are laws in place. People like you ought to be ticketed more often. And you're the expert about speed not being dangerous?! I'm not even going to get STARTED on that!



There are a lot of cops in UNIFORM on their day shift who are in court. Yes, off duty officers get paid extra to be in court, but I'm referring to the cops who are in court ON DUTY on a day shift -- who have to come off the road to attend court, and then go back on the road. I'm still stand corrected on fighting ALL tickets are being immoral.

the cops are not the law. they use the law to charge you and you use the law to defend yourself. that's how it works
what's wrong with you?
and why are you so concered about cops wasting their time at court if they are not concerned at all and want to get extra pay? why do you think Toronto is a speeding trap capital of NA? how would you then fight ridiculous tickets if that's immoral according to you

[tigger03]

the cops are not the law. they use the law to charge you and you use the law to defend yourself. that's how it works
what's wrong with you?
and why are you so concered about cops wasting their time at court if they are not concerned at all and want to get extra pay? why do you think Toronto is a speeding trap capital of NA? how would you then fight ridiculous tickets if that's immoral according to you

All cops don't want to get extra pay. Just because you read an article or two in the Toronto Star doesn't mean that it applies to ALL cops ... that's a little prejudice on your part. A lot of cops do not live in the city/region that they work in, and would rather have the time off. I have relatives who are cops. I think it's immoral to want to fight a ticket to see "if the cop shows up" -- in essence, you're forcing the cop to show up to court on a day off and have him/her get extra pay when they could be enjoying their day off with their family. Your ORIGINAL intention was to see if the officer shows up, if he/she doesn't you get off ... if he/she does, you prolong the process. THAT is immoral. I'm talking about the ORIGINAL intentions that you're taking the ticket to court.

Speeding traps are to catch speeders -- that's a no brainer. If you don't want to get caught, don't speed! ... else educate yourself on familiar speed traps (a simple google search or an iphone app would help).

I'm talking about taking a ticket to court to clog up the system & waste everyone's time by delaying court dates ... THAT'S immoral. I'm not referring to lousy tickets such as forgetting your insurance card at home, therefore you got the ticket. I think someone mentioned that if you bring the insurance card to court with your ticket, they could drop it. Again, the LAW requires that you always surrender your insurance card upon the DEMAND of a law enforcement officer ... if you don't, there's a ticket. It's black and white written in law. Police have discretion as well, but it doesn't mean that you should always get off the hook.

I'm not talking about using the law to defend yourself if required, I'm talking about the IMMORALITY of it all.

[vero95]

All cops don't want to get extra pay. Just because you read an article or two in the Toronto Star doesn't mean that it applies to ALL cops ... that's a little prejudice on your part. A lot of cops do not live in the city/region that they work in, and would rather have the time off. I have relatives who are cops. I think it's immoral to want to fight a ticket to see "if the cop shows up" -- in essence, you're forcing the cop to show up to court on a day off and have him/her get extra pay when they could be enjoying their day off with their family. Your ORIGINAL intention was to see if the officer shows up, if he/she doesn't you get off ... if he/she does, you prolong the process. THAT is immoral. I'm talking about the ORIGINAL intentions that you're taking the ticket to court.

Speeding traps are to catch speeders -- that's a no brainer. If you don't want to get caught, don't speed! ... else educate yourself on familiar speed traps (a simple google search or an iphone app would help).

I'm talking about taking a ticket to court to clog up the system & waste everyone's time by delaying court dates ... THAT'S immoral. I'm not referring to lousy tickets such as forgetting your insurance card at home, therefore you got the ticket. I think someone mentioned that if you bring the insurance card to court with your ticket, they could drop it. Again, the LAW requires that you always surrender your insurance card upon the DEMAND of a law enforcement officer ... if you don't, there's a ticket. It's black and white written in law. Police have discretion as well, but it doesn't mean that you should always get off the hook.

I'm not talking about using the law to defend yourself if required, I'm talking about the IMMORALITY of it all.

I am sorry, I have not thought about those who want to have time off and spend it with their families or just want to enjoy quiet life waiting for their retirements and their pension plans
how about a system that would make it immoral to fight tickets received from that group and moral to fight tickets received from the group that wants to go to the court to get extra pay?

[twigz]

I read on ticket combat (http://www.ticketcombat.com/step5/nonsuit.php) that the prosecution needs to show the by-law in order to prove that the stop sign is valid. I just had my court date and stated I requested the by law in my request for disclosure and that it was never sent to me. The judge said that the by-law is irrelevant because my offence is contrary to a provincial offence. He ended up adjourning my trial to a later date, but I'm wondering why they didn't just dismiss my case on the grounds that the prosecution did not present the by-law. FYI, the officer did show up.

[vero95]

I read on ticket combat (http://www.ticketcombat.com/step5/nonsuit.php) that the prosecution needs to show the by-law in order to prove that the stop sign is valid. I just had my court date and stated I requested the by law in my request for disclosure and that it was never sent to me. The judge said that the by-law is irrelevant because my offence is contrary to a provincial offence. He ended up adjourning my trial to a later date, but I'm wondering why they didn't just dismiss my case on the grounds that the prosecution did not present the by-law. FYI, the officer did show up.

the reason of the offence should be written on your ticket. if not, you should have asked
if the new date is more than 12 months after the offence date, you can file for Chapter 11 and ask to have the case dismissed. there is a special thread for that

[twigz]

the reason of the offence should be written on your ticket. if not, you should have asked
if the new date is more than 12 months after the offence date, you can file for Chapter 11 and ask to have the case dismissed. there is a special thread for that

The reason of the offense is disobey stop sign contrary to HTA 136. HTA 137 states that a by-law is required to erect all stop signs. Traffic Combat just says that unless the prosecutor presents the by-law during the trial, they can't prove the stop sign is valid. I tried to argue that, but they wouldn't hear it. Perhaps, I can find a past case where someone was able to win their case that way?

The new date is 10months from the date of offence.

[vero95]

The reason of the offense is disobey stop sign contrary to HTA 136. HTA 137 states that a by-law is required to erect all stop signs. Traffic Combat just says that unless the prosecutor presents the by-law during the trial, they can't prove the stop sign is valid. I tried to argue that, but they wouldn't hear it. Perhaps, I can find a past case where someone was able to win their case that way?

The new date is 10months from the date of offence.

I would try to get a legal advice. if you are a member of CAA, they have it or call a paralegal. sometimes they offer free advice

[tigger03]

I am sorry, I have not thought about those who want to have time off and spend it with their families or just want to enjoy quiet life waiting for their retirements and their pension plans
how about a system that would make it immoral to fight tickets received from that group and moral to fight tickets received from the group that wants to go to the court to get extra pay?

Well, maybe you should THINK about that then. Just because you read one article in the Toronto Star about Toronto Police officers giving out tickets in order to get their pay at court, you think it applies to ALL police officers.

Why are you even bothering to think about police officers to begin with? If you deserve the ticket, PAY IT. If not, challenge it. Plain and simple. All I'm saying is that it is IMMORAL to challenge tickets for the pure fact of hoping that a cop won't show up to court, or that you can keep delaying the case.

[makaveli86]

Sorry if this has been asked before,

but if one pleads "not guilty" and defends their case, but at the end is found guilty by the judge... will the judge sentence out the full amount of the original fines, or can he/she be found guilty and then also receive a reduced fine?

Got a ticket on a 'improper right turn' and was not sure if i'm better off pleading guilty with explanation (it was 1 am, roads were empty) or saying not guilty (the light was still yellow when I made the turn)... Wondering if I say not guilty and then found guilty, would the judge consider lowering the fees? Or since I pleaded not guilty and then found guilty, I'm sentenced to carry out the full amount of the original fine?

[Whitedart]

Sorry if this has been asked before,

but if one pleads "not guilty" and defends their case, but at the end is found guilty by the judge... will the judge sentence out the full amount of the original fines, or can he/she be found guilty and then also receive a reduced fine?

It can end up either way, full amount or a lessor amount, and depends on the Justice.



Got a ticket on a 'improper right turn' and was not sure if i'm better off pleading guilty with explanation (it was 1 am, roads were empty) or saying not guilty (the light was still yellow when I made the turn)... Wondering if I say not guilty and then found guilty, would the judge consider lowering the fees? Or since I pleaded not guilty and then found guilty, I'm sentenced to carry out the full amount of the original fine?

How was the turn "improper"? Did it cause a collision, or cause some other type of incident?

[makaveli86]

It can end up either way, full amount or a lessor amount, and depends on the Justice.



How was the turn "improper"? Did it cause a collision, or cause some other type of incident?

It was improper in the sense that it was wide. There was a pothole I didn't want to go over, so made it wide. Mind you it was at 1am on empty roads. It was also the last day of of the month (November 30th), not sure if that matters.

[m4gician]

It was improper in the sense that it was wide. There was a pothole I didn't want to go over, so made it wide. Mind you it was at 1am on empty roads. It was also the last day of of the month (November 30th), not sure if that matters.

So you had cause? Had you not talked nicely with the officer? :( sounds like you're a victim the way you tell your story. Take pictures of the pothole and show to JP and say that you were reasonably avoiding damage to your vehicle.

[longitude]

It was improper in the sense that it was wide. There was a pothole I didn't want to go over, so made it wide. Mind you it was at 1am on empty roads. It was also the last day of of the month (November 30th), not sure if that matters.


So you had cause? Had you not talked nicely with the officer? :( sounds like you're a victim the way you tell your story. Take pictures of the pothole and show to JP and say that you were reasonably avoiding damage to your vehicle.

It doesn't matter, according to TrevorK you have to do the right thing. If you got a ticket then Amen, just pay it. Do not fight it.
:D

[h2lam]

Did anyone ever ask for a "Discovery"? I was told about using this to get off the hook for my speeding traffic tickets?

Does it work? Anyone every try & know?

[yao416]

Did anyone ever ask for a "Discovery"? I was told about using this to get off the hook for my speeding traffic tickets?

Does it work? Anyone every try & know?




Disclosure*

[h2lam]

Disclosure*

No, I am not talking about disclosure. I know all about disclosure already. I am talking about "discovery".

[yao416]

Read all the ticket fighting sites, never once read about discovery

[h2lam]

Read all the ticket fighting sites, never once read about discovery

Me too, that's why I am asking...

[longitude]

Read all the ticket fighting sites, never once read about discovery

yao, what happened to your topic?

[yao416]

yao, what happened to your topic?

http://redflagdeals.com/showthread.php?t=969553

???

[longitude]

http://redflagdeals.com/showthread.php?t=969553

???

It's been deleted my friend.

[h2lam]

I was lucky when I went to trial this week. I had my trial downtown City Hall. There was only 2 of us who had the same officer and he did show up. This is my 2nd trial date, I couldn't make it to the original date which was a few months back. The officer told the prosecutor to dismiss my case and I was let go...I was there and ready to plea guilty..So there are nice officers out there, you just got to be lucky I guess...It also helps that there was only 2 of us who had the same officer. He wouldn't do this on the first trial date where there is usually a group such as 10 people b/c of the speed trap...They gather everyone who was caught by the same officer and put us all together in the same date on the 1st trial...

[h2lam]

Has anyone been caught by a red light camera before. Did you go to court yet? What was the outcome?

My dad just got one & we are trying to figure out what is the outcome if we go to court? Should he plea guilty or go to court?? The ticket alone is around $350.

I heard that there's no demerit points if you plea guilty or if you pay for the ticket?

If you go to court, will they lower the ticket price like in the speeding tickets cases?

[vaportech]

Has anyone been caught by a red light camera before. Did you go to court yet? What was the outcome?

My dad just got one & we are trying to figure out what is the outcome if we go to court? Should he plea guilty or go to court?? The ticket alone is around $350.

I heard that there's no demerit points if you plea guilty or if you pay for the ticket?

If you go to court, will they lower the ticket price like in the speeding tickets cases?

Yea, they will usually offer a deal.

If the prosecution has a slam dunk case against you, then just accept the deal.

[h2lam]

Yea, they will usually offer a deal.

If the prosecution has a slam dunk case against you, then just accept the deal.

Have you dealt with red light camera ticket and going to court to fight it before? I think its a totally different world from regular traffic ticket like speeding. There's no police or anything as its the camera catching you and no conviction. I wonder if I can get the fine reduce if I go fight it in person & plea guilty?

[dongivaf]

Hey everyone, recieved 2 tickets when I was pulled over. Going to request disclosure but wanted opinions if I should put disclosure for both tickets.

Do you thinkg that the failure to notify change of address has a chance of being stayed? Or is it a slam dunk for the prosecution? Should I just fight the speeding ticket?

Trial date has already been set for both tickets and they are on the same day/time and will be just short of 14 months from the time I was given the tickets.

Can someone please advise?

[vero95]

Hey everyone, recieved 2 tickets when I was pulled over. Going to request disclosure but wanted opinions if I should put disclosure for both tickets.

Do you thinkg that the failure to notify change of address has a chance of being stayed? Or is it a slam dunk for the prosecution? Should I just fight the speeding ticket?

Trial date has already been set for both tickets and they are on the same day/time and will be just short of 14 months from the time I was given the tickets.

Can someone please advise?

14 months = try 11b defense
the failure to notify change of address can be corrected before the trial if you show the docs. you should focus on the speeding ticket

[dongivaf]

14 months = try 11b defense
the failure to notify change of address can be corrected before the trial if you show the docs. you should focus on the speeding ticket

Thx vero! Would you still request for disclosure? Just wondering because when I do file the 11b, don't I have to show that I did my best to get disclosure, etc?

[vero95]

Thx vero! Would you still request for disclosure? Just wondering because when I do file the 11b, don't I have to show that I did my best to get disclosure, etc?

you should have asked for disclosure as soon as you got your court date
always ask for disclosure
I would ask even now if you have not done that yet. call the prosecutor (get a phone number by calling the court on the ticket) and request it

[dongivaf]

you should have asked for disclosure as soon as you got your court date
always ask for disclosure
I would ask even now if you have not done that yet. call the prosecutor (get a phone number by calling the court on the ticket) and request it

Yup just sent it in. Court date is still 3 months away. Thanks for your help.

[dongivaf]

you should have asked for disclosure as soon as you got your court date
always ask for disclosure
I would ask even now if you have not done that yet. call the prosecutor (get a phone number by calling the court on the ticket) and request it

Also, if I attended a first attendance meeting with the prosecutor (it was unsuccessful), would that have any impact on my application for stay of proceedings?

[vero95]

Also, if I attended a first attendance meeting with the prosecutor (it was unsuccessful), would that have any impact on my application for stay of proceedings?

no one can predict the outcome of a trial
I would stick to the 11b defence first. the disclosure will give you more details on how to prepare your defence if 11b fails. you can call any paralegal and ask for free advice as well
this site can provide some info as well
http://www.ticketcombat.com/

[ph00p]

I've got my court date coming up on Tueday and I asked for the disclosure but they haven't sent it! What can I do now? The ticket is for 31 over in a 100 zone so its 4 points and $345.

What things should I say when I plead not guilty? Why wouldn't they send me the information I've requested? I requested it back early December, I've got my copy of the request and handed to the people for processing on that day.

Any ideas? Any help greatly appreciated!

[vero95]

I've got my court date coming up on Tueday and I asked for the disclosure but they haven't sent it! What can I do now? The ticket is for 31 over in a 100 zone so its 4 points and $345.

What things should I say when I plead not guilty? Why wouldn't they send me the information I've requested? I requested it back early December, I've got my copy of the request and handed to the people for processing on that day.

Any ideas? Any help greatly appreciated!

if the cop is not there, you won. if he is, you may ask for adjournment if you have not received the disclosure
if the ticket was not reduced, you can plead guilty to lesser charge if you do not want to fight it

[vaportech]

I've got my court date coming up on Tueday and I asked for the disclosure but they haven't sent it! What can I do now? The ticket is for 31 over in a 100 zone so its 4 points and $345.

What things should I say when I plead not guilty? Why wouldn't they send me the information I've requested? I requested it back early December, I've got my copy of the request and handed to the people for processing on that day.

Any ideas? Any help greatly appreciated!

You can argue section 11 of the charter where it gurantees you that you have the right to view all evidence that is going to be used against you in court.

If the prosecution has failed to provide you the documents, do not get pressured into accepting a deal or a request to move the trial to another date.

After they read you the charge say "your worship, i do not wish to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty as I have not received any evidence that is to be used against me today and as such infrindges on my rights under section 11 of the charter and your worship i would like to request that this matter be stayed indefinitely."

Stand your ground, the prosecution loves ignorant people.

[vaportech]

if the cop is not there, you won. if he is, you may ask for adjournment if you have not received the disclosure
if the ticket was not reduced, you can plead guilty to lesser charge if you do not want to fight it

naw don't even ask for adjournment, ask for a stay.

[vero95]

naw don't even ask for adjournment, ask for a stay.

did you get it stayed based on lack of disclosure? just curious
it wouls be nice to know the case for future reference

[ph00p]

You can argue section 11 of the charter where it gurantees you that you have the right to view all evidence that is going to be used against you in court.

If the prosecution has failed to provide you the documents, do not get pressured into accepting a deal or a request to move the trial to another date.

After they read you the charge say "your worship, i do not wish to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty as I have not received any evidence that is to be used against me today and as such infrindges on my rights under section 11 of the charter and your worship i would like to request that this matter be stayed indefinitely."

Stand your ground, the prosecution loves ignorant people.



Sorry for maybe stupid question but does Section 11 work in NL or is that only mainland?

[vaportech]

did you get it stayed based on lack of disclosure? just curious
it wouls be nice to know the case for future reference

no i never got my tickets stayed, it got withdrawn due to lack of evidence and when i saw the prosecutor fumbling through my thick file it had a page in very bright yellow and bold letters that said "REQUESTED ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE".

he later withdrew it based on lack of evidence.

[vaportech]

Sorry for maybe stupid question but does Section 11 work in NL or is that only mainland?

Lol, I didn't know that NL became a separate state outside of Canada.

Yes, it works in NL as NL is part of Canada and that the Charter covers Canada.

What is the mainland?

[ph00p]

Lol, I didn't know that NL became a separate state outside of Canada.

Yes, it works in NL as NL is part of Canada and that the Charter covers Canada.

What is the mainland?

I typed that after a long day at work sorry. Anyway I'll go with the indefinate stay hopefully that will work. I also haven't gotten the confirmation of court date in the mail either.

[rupert]

You can argue section 11 of the charter where it gurantees you that you have the right to view all evidence that is going to be used against you in court.

If the prosecution has failed to provide you the documents, do not get pressured into accepting a deal or a request to move the trial to another date.

After they read you the charge say "your worship, i do not wish to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty as I have not received any evidence that is to be used against me today and as such infrindges on my rights under section 11 of the charter and your worship i would like to request that this matter be stayed indefinitely."

Stand your ground, the prosecution loves ignorant people.

Non-disclosure is Section 7. Also, you cannot just show up to court and use a charter defense, you must file all the appropriate paper work at least 15 days prior to your court date and serve all the appropriate parties. Don't count on them to even listen to you if you haven't done so.

[ph00p]

Non-disclosure is Section 7. Also, you cannot just show up to court and use a charter defense, you must file all the appropriate paper work at least 15 days prior to your court date and serve all the appropriate parties. Don't count on them to even listen to you if you haven't done so.

I called the Crown today about my lack of disclosure and the guy told me I can delay the case if the officer hasn't submitted it when I go in on the day of the trial (March 3rd) he also said I can talk before the trial to see if I can work something out with the officer and the justice. Should I do that part? How long does an ofTHficer get to turn in notes for a trial? Any help is welcome.

[vero95]

I called the Crown today about my lack of disclosure and the guy told me I can delay the case if the officer hasn't submitted it when I go in on the day of the trial (March 3rd) he also said I can talk before the trial to see if I can work something out with the officer and the justice. Should I do that part? How long does an ofTHficer get to turn in notes for a trial? Any help is welcome.

if you get it delayed and since the delay was not caused by you, you can file for chapter 11b when you get the new court date and it's more than 12 months since the offense date
the prosecutor may try to give you the disclosure in court or give you a deal of lower charge. you will still be convicted though if you plead guilty
also if the officer is not there, you win and he will need to be there twice so your chances of winning are getting higher

[dongivaf]

you should have asked for disclosure as soon as you got your court date
always ask for disclosure
I would ask even now if you have not done that yet. call the prosecutor (get a phone number by calling the court on the ticket) and request it

Hi Vero,

So the court actually gave me the disclosure that I asked for, except the manual for the speed measuring device. They said that they have a copy of the testing procedures which I can pick up.

With the disclosure given to me, will it be harder to go with the Chapter 11b? Trial date is 14 months from the date of the charge. What would you do?

[vero95]

Hi Vero,

So the court actually gave me the disclosure that I asked for, except the manual for the speed measuring device. They said that they have a copy of the testing procedures which I can pick up.

With the disclosure given to me, will it be harder to go with the Chapter 11b? Trial date is 14 months from the date of the charge. What would you do?

the disclosure has nothing to do with filing for chapter 11b. you have 2 ways to fight your ticket: to get it tossed out based on chapter 11b or if that fails, to go to the trial. it's up to you if you want to use all your options

[steven87]

so I just got the Notice of Trial after 2months.
But I didn't ask for an interpreter.

is there any way I can ask for one at this time?
:cry:
thanks

[vero95]

so I just got the Notice of Trial after 2months.
But I didn't ask for an interpreter.

is there any way I can ask for one at this time?
:cry:
thanks

call the court (the number is on the back of your ticket) and ask them

[h2o-]

you should have asked for disclosure as soon as you got your court date
always ask for disclosure
I would ask even now if you have not done that yet. call the prosecutor (get a phone number by calling the court on the ticket) and request it

Question on sending a request for disclosure, vero.

Why is that important tro request for disclosure as soon as I got the court date in mail? Didn't it give the party adequate time to prepare and provide the document to the defender by doing this?

[vaportech]

so I just got the Notice of Trial after 2months.
But I didn't ask for an interpreter.

is there any way I can ask for one at this time?
:cry:
thanks

You can request w.e you want within a reasonable amount of time before the trial starts.

I have personally requested an interpretor before, even when I received the notice of trial.

You just have to bring it to the place where you are gonna have the trial and update the paperwork there.

[vaportech]

Question on sending a request for disclosure, vero.

Why is that important tro request for disclosure as soon as I got the court date in mail? Didn't it give the party adequate time to prepare and provide the document to the defender by doing this?

Once you get the court date that means that the prosecutor, the court, and the officer acknowledges the case. Thus it is now official and that you should get your disclosure and defense ready to prepare for trial.

Personally I would request disclosure before the notice of trial, since you are there already, might as well. Then re-request it when the notice comes. Keep all paperwork!

[vaportech]

Hi Vero,

So the court actually gave me the disclosure that I asked for, except the manual for the speed measuring device. They said that they have a copy of the testing procedures which I can pick up.

With the disclosure given to me, will it be harder to go with the Chapter 11b? Trial date is 14 months from the date of the charge. What would you do?

What vero said.

Section 11b, means that the court has not provided you a trial within a reasonable time, reasonable time meaning 11 months as set forth by the Supreme Court of Canada in the R v. Askov case.

[vaportech]

Non-disclosure is Section 7. Also, you cannot just show up to court and use a charter defense, you must file all the appropriate paper work at least 15 days prior to your court date and serve all the appropriate parties. Don't count on them to even listen to you if you haven't done so.

For section 7 you don't have to file the paperwork, it would be for section 11b that would require filing of paperwork.

And yes it is section 7, sorry, was going through a bunch of replies and lost my trail of thought.

The paperwork you would need to bring to court for a case that is within 11 months and not over 11 months would be the numerous requests for disclosure.

Yes you need to file paperwork for section 11b, if it is over 11months but its not the case for section 7.

You can use improper disclosure in a section 11b argument but it would just be supplementary.

[elvishui]

Hi,
i am waiting for a court date and my speeding was caught July last year. Is chapter 11b apply to BC? How can i fill chapter 11b in BC format?

Please assist

[pai]

my notice of trial was issued at scarborough (toronto east) the 1530 markham rd location

do i mail my disclosure request to the court room? and what do i write on the envelope?

and i tried calling that number on the notice to see if i can get the proscutors office, except it doesnt give an option to talk to anyone, but they want you to email them??


OMG PLEASE HELP

[vaportech]

my notice of trial was issued at scarborough (toronto east) the 1530 markham rd location

do i mail my disclosure request to the court room? and what do i write on the envelope?

and i tried calling that number on the notice to see if i can get the proscutors office, except it doesnt give an option to talk to anyone, but they want you to email them??


OMG PLEASE HELP

Go there and drop it off. If you are lost, you can ask the clerk there.

[pai]

so i only need to send one copy, just to the court house?

and if i go there and drop it off, how do i have proof i did that? vs registered mail

[vero95]

so i only need to send one copy, just to the court house?

and if i go there and drop it off, how do i have proof i did that? vs registered mail

you ask the prosecutor for disclosure. the court will give you the number. you can call and ask how to apply for it (fax, mail, email, etc). they may provide you with the proper form as well and ask you how you want it delivered

[pai]

i registered mailed it to the courthouse address, thats the same as the prosecutor office right?

[vero95]

i registered mailed it to the courthouse address, thats the same as the prosecutor office right?

no. call the courthouse number on the back of your ticket and ask them how to contact the prosecutor to get the disclosure

[pai]

i tried calling the number but its only gives a message to email someone, theres no one you can speak to..

[vero95]

i tried calling the number but its only gives a message to email someone, theres no one you can speak to..

do you want me to send that email for you? :-0

[bonbon321]

i have two traffic ticket (one for speeding, one for failure to surrender registration) on May 12, 2010. My court date is set on July 10, 2011.

Right now I want to do three things:
1. Request disclosure
2. Request interpreter as I didn't do that when I was filing for the court date
3. File an application for Section 11b

Can I do these 3 things all at the same time if I can get time to go to the court and do it personally?

[vero95]

i have two traffic ticket (one for speeding, one for failure to surrender registration) on May 12, 2010. My court date is set on July 10, 2011.

Right now I want to do three things:
1. Request disclosure
2. Request interpreter as I didn't do that when I was filing for the court date
3. File an application for Section 11b

Can I do these 3 things all at the same time if I can get time to go to the court and do it personally?

you file for chapter 11b separately. search this forum how to do that. there is lots of information
if you want to get disclosure, you have to apply for it asap. call the prosecutor's office (the court can provide the number) and ask them how to get it. it takes few weeks
re interpreter, I would think you have to request it at the court

[bonbon321]

you file for chapter 11b separately. search this forum how to do that. there is lots of information
if you want to get disclosure, you have to apply for it asap. call the prosecutor's office (the court can provide the number) and ask them how to get it. it takes few weeks
re interpreter, I would think you have to request it at the court

thanks for the quick reply!

Was wondering if I should file 11b now or after i attempt to get disclosure. Because if they don't provide me with the disclosure I can further push the trial at a later date? but on the other hand they may just show the disclosure to me at the spot on the trial date. Any advice? Thanks!

[vero95]

thanks for the quick reply!

Was wondering if I should file 11b now or after i attempt to get disclosure. Because if they don't provide me with the disclosure I can further push the trial at a later date? but on the other hand they may just show the disclosure to me at the spot on the trial date. Any advice? Thanks!

I think you answered the question yourself. you file for chapter 11b for the trial date. if they fail to deliver disclosure by then and have to adjourn the trial, your chances of success increase, no?

[bonbon321]

I think you answered the question yourself. you file for chapter 11b for the trial date. if they fail to deliver disclosure by then and have to adjourn the trial, your chances of success increase, no?

True!

One more question. Since I got 2 tickets on that day, does it make sense to file 11b for my other ticket as well (failure to show registration). I know this one is easy to fight. I just need to show the registration to the court. But should I put this offense along with the speeding offense while filing 11b just in case?

[h2lam]

1) What happens when we file to disclosure and the officer doesn't have his notes ready?

What happens then? Do they just reschedule for a different trial date until he shows up with his notes to have it ready to show us?

2) What happens if the officer does have his notes and show us his notes?

[h2lam]

I went to court yesterday for a speeding ticket that I had originally changed the date hoping that my cop didn't show up. I was the only person with this officer # on the list and he didn't show up on time. He came a bit late but he ended up showing up so I was not off the hook :(

Is it a general rule where if the cop doesn't show up in court, you are automatically off the hook? I found the prosecutor and judge at downtown much nicer and more understanding then the ones in York Civic Centre. They didn't even reduce my fine :(

[vero95]

True!

One more question. Since I got 2 tickets on that day, does it make sense to file 11b for my other ticket as well (failure to show registration). I know this one is easy to fight. I just need to show the registration to the court. But should I put this offense along with the speeding offense while filing 11b just in case?

you file 11b for each charge

[vero95]

1) What happens when we file to disclosure and the officer doesn't have his notes ready?

What happens then? Do they just reschedule for a different trial date until he shows up with his notes to have it ready to show us?

2) What happens if the officer does have his notes and show us his notes?

you are supposed to get disclosure before the trial date unless you do not give the prosecutor enough time to do that. if you do not get it by then and are told to read the notes just before the trial, you can refuse and ask for adjournment. if the new trial date is over 12 months or so and since the adjournment was not caused by you, it may qualify for chapter 11b
why don't you do search on that?

[TrevorK]

Is it a general rule where if the cop doesn't show up in court, you are automatically off the hook? I found the prosecutor and judge at downtown much nicer and more understanding then the ones in York Civic Centre. They didn't even reduce my fine :(

If the police officer is critical in establishing the case then yes, your charges will be dropped. For instance, if the police officer gave you a ticket for not stopping and does not show up there is no way for the crown to establish that you didn't actually stop and because they have to prove your guilt they need to police officer there. I'm sure there are always exceptions to this, however I would think for most cases this is the normal way it would go.

I'm not sure how it would work if your infraction is based off of a camera (red-light ticket) that is not operated by anyone.