pfbmgd
Well-known member
Sound like jealousy to me . Many good people work for the government . No blue collar worker one gets rich working for the government . The wages have been going up less then the cost of living for years .
|
|
|
Watch Out With Sneaky Court Tactics When Fighting Tickets
- Thread starter Pegassus
- Start date
- Status
Sound like jealousy to me . Many good people work for the government . No blue collar worker one gets rich working for the government . The wages have been going up less then the cost of living for years .
bigpoppa
Well-known member
I remember seeing TTC employees napping on duty making 50k a year whilst "working" as fare collectors and i thought, damn that guy has it rough!
There are some exceptions(doctors, nurses) but by and large, the inefficiencies of govt/public sector are obvious to all but those milking the teet of the govt.
Fun read, there are some good points in here, but in reality you got lucky the cop didn't show. Arguably, yes the other plantiffs should have been smart enough to see it, so fair point. You can argue you were ready to pick fight, but its just bench racing after the fact. Not to say you shouldn't, but understand the difference between a win based on merit and a win based on luck.
The 'do your research' thing is a good point. If you find reading case law decisions secretly interesting like I do (mainly to find the flaws in the logic), there are a variety of notable judgements available online through public records. As a STEM person, it is both interesting and insanely frustrating to see some of these judgements. Remember, logic and reason only apply to those who have logic and reason to begin with. A fellow STEM person might, but traffic court is not full of them. Typically these cases merely reference existing cases and try to put a square peg into a round hole. Some of these judgements are quite alarming. Cops calibrating radar guns completely out of spec, generalized extrapolation (one radar gun is accurate so they all are), lack of evidence basis, who said what without proof, etc.
Also keep in mind a previously reduced ticket can be restored to it's original value, but unless you have real grounds, its not always the worst bet, if you don't have a solid angle. The point is, acquire the evidence against you and, do your research. Do not use those generic discloure forms. Ask for the moon. Certificates, qualifications, date stamps, equipment logs, serial numbers, manuals, etc etc. It will take you weeks or months to mount a credible challenge, but you need a thread to pull on to start. Simply going in guns blazing isn't always the answer.
It's quite the opposite of engineering where the evidence dictates the result, in court, determine the result first, then find the evidence/line of questioning to get there. Never ask a question you don't know the answer to.
The 'do your research' thing is a good point. If you find reading case law decisions secretly interesting like I do (mainly to find the flaws in the logic), there are a variety of notable judgements available online through public records. As a STEM person, it is both interesting and insanely frustrating to see some of these judgements. Remember, logic and reason only apply to those who have logic and reason to begin with. A fellow STEM person might, but traffic court is not full of them. Typically these cases merely reference existing cases and try to put a square peg into a round hole. Some of these judgements are quite alarming. Cops calibrating radar guns completely out of spec, generalized extrapolation (one radar gun is accurate so they all are), lack of evidence basis, who said what without proof, etc.
Also keep in mind a previously reduced ticket can be restored to it's original value, but unless you have real grounds, its not always the worst bet, if you don't have a solid angle. The point is, acquire the evidence against you and, do your research. Do not use those generic discloure forms. Ask for the moon. Certificates, qualifications, date stamps, equipment logs, serial numbers, manuals, etc etc. It will take you weeks or months to mount a credible challenge, but you need a thread to pull on to start. Simply going in guns blazing isn't always the answer.
It's quite the opposite of engineering where the evidence dictates the result, in court, determine the result first, then find the evidence/line of questioning to get there. Never ask a question you don't know the answer to.
Since you seem to spend a lot of time fighting tickets, why not tell us about the "fights" you lost?
The cop not showing doesn't constitute a win, it constitutes luck, or arguably, a technicality.
The cop not showing doesn't constitute a win, it constitutes luck, or arguably, a technicality.
You're going to pisss off alot of public workers on this board. Let the crawl out
Salos Dafee
Well-known member
There are lots and lots of ways to mess up on the witness stand, and some cops will give testimony
that you can demonstrate to be wrong. You may need to be quick and smart to spot the cop's mistake.
In three instances, I got assistance from the magistrate. I suspect the magistrate was sympathetic
to me because I was dressed in a suit and I was polite and attentive.
1. Charge: Entering an intersection when the light was amber.
(Yup, that can be an offence, if the cop reckons you could have stopped safely.)
Cop's mistake: the cop's testimony showed uncertainty about where my car was when the light turned from green to amber.
Magistrate interrupted the cop and instructed him to go and sit down, then explained that the cop's testimony contained contradictions that suggested the light turned from amber to red just one second after it had turned from green to amber. Case dismissed.
2. Charge: Parking during a snow emergency where that is prohibited.
Cop's mistake: He had no proof that a snow emergency was in effect when I was parked there. When I asked how he knew the snow emergency was in effect, he said, "My sergeant told me." The magistrate butted in (it's his court, so he can do as he pleases) and asked if that sergeant was in the courtroom. "No, your worship." The magistrate told the cop to go and sit down.
The magistrate then ripped a strip off me for parking during the season's worst and heaviest snowstorm. I took this in silence, because I knew what was coming. He then explained that "hearsay" evidence, being a report of what the witness heard someone else say, is not acceptable evidence, so he had to dismiss the case. (BTW this magistrate was the late Judge Robert Dnieper, a very severe magistrate.)
3. Charge (nobody knew ... but really it was parking between "No Parking Here to Corner" and the corner).
Somebody messed up in preparing the summons, so I was charged with violating By-Law 323W Section 4J paragraph 8B or something like it.
When the bailiff said "SalosDafeeyouarechargedwithviolatingBy-Law323WSection4Jparagraph8BHowdoyoupleadguiltyornotguilty" all in one breath, I said, "I don't know."
The magistrate spoke to me as if I were nine years old and said, "If you think you committed the offence, say 'Guilty'; otherwise say 'Not guilty'. Do you understand?" I replied that I understood the situation and the question, but I had visited new City Haul and asked what that paragraph of that section of that bylaw said, and nobody had been able to tell me, so I did not know what the offence was. I said, "If you will tell me what you think I did, I will tell you whether I did it." The magistrate asked the bailiff to read the subject by-law, and the bailiff could not find it, so the magistrate smiled and said, "We have no idea what we think you did, but DON'T DO IT AGAIN! Case dismissed!"
SO ... yes, wear clean good-looking clothes, and stand up straight with your hair combed and your shoes shined and use "Sir" or "Madam" a lot and know the drill and be a good little accused person and look at whoever is speaking ... and FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS. For instance, when invited to question the cop, have some questions to ask, and make sure, Absolutely Sure, that everything you say is a question. It helps a lot to rehearse the scene with friends, especially if you can persuade them to come to some trial a week or so before yours.
And if you are really fortunate and the magistrate tells the cop to go and sit down, SHUT YOUR MOUTH and wait for "case dismissed", because that must follow if the magistrate terminates your questions before you say you are done. Then smile and say "Thank you" and leave.
If you are like me, you will sing, "I fought the law and I won!" in the hallway, and maybe more loudly outside.
Good luck, y'all!
that you can demonstrate to be wrong. You may need to be quick and smart to spot the cop's mistake.
In three instances, I got assistance from the magistrate. I suspect the magistrate was sympathetic
to me because I was dressed in a suit and I was polite and attentive.
1. Charge: Entering an intersection when the light was amber.
(Yup, that can be an offence, if the cop reckons you could have stopped safely.)
Cop's mistake: the cop's testimony showed uncertainty about where my car was when the light turned from green to amber.
Magistrate interrupted the cop and instructed him to go and sit down, then explained that the cop's testimony contained contradictions that suggested the light turned from amber to red just one second after it had turned from green to amber. Case dismissed.
2. Charge: Parking during a snow emergency where that is prohibited.
Cop's mistake: He had no proof that a snow emergency was in effect when I was parked there. When I asked how he knew the snow emergency was in effect, he said, "My sergeant told me." The magistrate butted in (it's his court, so he can do as he pleases) and asked if that sergeant was in the courtroom. "No, your worship." The magistrate told the cop to go and sit down.
The magistrate then ripped a strip off me for parking during the season's worst and heaviest snowstorm. I took this in silence, because I knew what was coming. He then explained that "hearsay" evidence, being a report of what the witness heard someone else say, is not acceptable evidence, so he had to dismiss the case. (BTW this magistrate was the late Judge Robert Dnieper, a very severe magistrate.)
3. Charge (nobody knew ... but really it was parking between "No Parking Here to Corner" and the corner).
Somebody messed up in preparing the summons, so I was charged with violating By-Law 323W Section 4J paragraph 8B or something like it.
When the bailiff said "SalosDafeeyouarechargedwithviolatingBy-Law323WSection4Jparagraph8BHowdoyoupleadguiltyornotguilty" all in one breath, I said, "I don't know."
The magistrate spoke to me as if I were nine years old and said, "If you think you committed the offence, say 'Guilty'; otherwise say 'Not guilty'. Do you understand?" I replied that I understood the situation and the question, but I had visited new City Haul and asked what that paragraph of that section of that bylaw said, and nobody had been able to tell me, so I did not know what the offence was. I said, "If you will tell me what you think I did, I will tell you whether I did it." The magistrate asked the bailiff to read the subject by-law, and the bailiff could not find it, so the magistrate smiled and said, "We have no idea what we think you did, but DON'T DO IT AGAIN! Case dismissed!"
SO ... yes, wear clean good-looking clothes, and stand up straight with your hair combed and your shoes shined and use "Sir" or "Madam" a lot and know the drill and be a good little accused person and look at whoever is speaking ... and FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS. For instance, when invited to question the cop, have some questions to ask, and make sure, Absolutely Sure, that everything you say is a question. It helps a lot to rehearse the scene with friends, especially if you can persuade them to come to some trial a week or so before yours.
And if you are really fortunate and the magistrate tells the cop to go and sit down, SHUT YOUR MOUTH and wait for "case dismissed", because that must follow if the magistrate terminates your questions before you say you are done. Then smile and say "Thank you" and leave.
If you are like me, you will sing, "I fought the law and I won!" in the hallway, and maybe more loudly outside.
Good luck, y'all!
Mad Mike
Well-known member
I agree.
The public sector in Canada is a 'panderer's playground', a gigantic cache of votes that no sitting government wants to muck with (Law of Hudak).
There is absolutely no reason for public sector workers should be earning substantially more than their private sector counterparts. It gets worse when you factor in productivity.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
I don't see that as jealousy. Sure there are good people everywhere, but there are also a lot of loafers in gov't jobs.
I see the odd comparable in my work.
1) Not too long ago I worked on a project that was in part outsourced and in part gov't. The gov't reps were expected to field 40 calls/day and the outsourced 55. The outsourced reps cost made $18/hour, the inhouse $29. That puts the gov't worker at about 48% of the efficiency of the private sector.
2) A telephone receptionist rep working at a hospital as a temp makes $16/hr. The FT hospital staffer next to her gets $31.90 + 1 hour paid lunch - they do the same job. That gov't employee is only 45% as productive as the private sector worker.
Now, that doesn't account for the cost of generous benefits and high vacancy rates.
pfbmgd, should the public be expected to accept the bar being set this low?
I fought a ticket in court, officer was there, i had a great defense for a civilian, heck even the cop was impressed she told me afterwards...but i was missing one element to have the ticket thrown off which i couldn't have had, unless i was recording the ride. So i got down to no demerit points or money to pay, but still had the offence, so insurance could still f me up (which they haven't)
So even if you have the best defense you can get as a civilian, it might get thrown out if the officer is still there. 3 other people took the plea deal 5 months before that, my friend who hired a paralegal had it thrown out completely... i fought it with interpreter in french (so got a different date) and that's what i got. Wish i couldve seen what the paralegal said/used.
So even if you have the best defense you can get as a civilian, it might get thrown out if the officer is still there. 3 other people took the plea deal 5 months before that, my friend who hired a paralegal had it thrown out completely... i fought it with interpreter in french (so got a different date) and that's what i got. Wish i couldve seen what the paralegal said/used.
bigpoppa
Well-known member
In other words, even if you didnt get everything you wanted, you still got something. So you benefited from: Knowing the relevant laws, having your legal ducks in a row, and fighting
Fighting in court is ALWAYS the preferred route, long as your not belligerent and are respectful of the court.
As chuck D would say, you gotta fight the powers that be.
Just want to say I read this whole thing and as a software developer I find the highlighted part very interesting if not a bit frustrating.
But hey, I guess we just gotta fight fire with fire sometimes.
pfbmgd
Well-known member
That is your experience . I have had fights with city hall .But many public sector worker I have dealt with were excellent . I doubt your number two scenario .The worker at $31 is probably in charge of the ward .
Mad Mike
Well-known member
No, she is my sister and she answers phones at a hospital just outside Toronto.
You`re in for a surprise. They are paid mucho dinero.
You are absolutely right, it makes sense.
90% of paralegals and traffic ticket fighters are there to make money not to get get you off the ticket. When the courts throw a "plea deal" on them they take it instantly because why would they waste their time fighting for you? Paralegals want to get as many cases done as possible in the least amount of time so all they do is take plea bargains. Your are dreaming if you think they are going to spend 30 minutes fighting a case for you.
I remember one time this young female paralegal trying to defend a truck driver from a $450 ticket and 4 demerit points. She was stuttering and her hands trembling, when the courts threw a plea deal to reduce the fine to $300 and the demerit points to 3, she looked at the truck driver in excitement and squealed "Okay, we got a good deal here, we are taking it!".
Last edited:
No. Wrong. I have fought and won 5 other tickets with 5 cops present in the courtroom. It was easy, since they LIE in court to nail you and I present the facts and procedure of the traffic stop they lose because they never have a back-up plan.
Let me tell you the story about ticket #3 against cop #3 who WAS in court.
An OPP cop came behind me and followed me for 5 minutes and then lit me up. I stopped and he asked where I was going and how many people I had in my car. I told him I had a full load of people. I asked him why he stopped me. He said "I saw lots of heads moving when I was following you". He then asked me to roll down my window and stuck his head inside and said "Hey you got a child with no seatbelts on" and proceeded to give me a ticket worth 3 demerit points and a hefty dollar amount. I told him; "Buddy remember this day, I'm going to see you and fight you in court, you had NO basis to stop me".
Fast-forward months to court day.
The OPP officer shows up with his chest pumped-up, I saw the D.A. and asked her if a cop had a case against me because he stopped me without having a clue why he was stopping me and that I had asked him and he had admitted he stopped me for seeing "heads moving". Under what law are "heads moving" reason enough to stop a person for a non-existent traffic violation? The D.A. called the cop over and asked him to look through his notes to see what I was talking about. The guy had written on the notes that he saw a child with no seatbelts and hence the reason he stopped me (lie). I told him in his face; "Where was the child, in the back row or the middle row of the minivan?" He said "middle row". I said "So you saw a 3-year-old child in the middle row from 30-ft behind me with 3 adults sitting in the backrow seat and they didn't obstruct your view???". "You never went besides me, you always stayed behind me, how can you see through seats and people?". "You also told me that day that my tinted windows were "borderline illegal". "How did you see that child if it wasn't for an illegal stop and you poking your head inside through my passenger window?" "Did you even wrote in your notes that you poked your head inside without having a clue why you stopped me?" "I have 6 witnesses that you did".
The D.A. asked me to step way and chatted with the cop. She then called me and told me I was free to go, she had told the cop she was not going to proceed with the case. All this happened right outside the door, not even inside the courtroom.
- Status
|
|
|
|
|