The tow company is under contract with the law enforcement agency that impounded your car. The receipt you received and/or the paperwork you received when you signed for release of your car SHOULD have included information on contesting the impound and tow fees. If not, you still should have received notice by mail from the Secretary of State information on contesting the impound fees and a petition form. If not, well, that appears to be a failure on the part of the law enforcement agency and/or the tow company and this would be good reason to see an attorney in your area. Contacting the ACLU of Michigan for advice and direction could be a good start.
The tow company provided me with nothing more than a bill for towing. There was no other paperwork given or mentioned, and nothing by mail from the Secretary of State or anyone else either. Perhaps that was a failure on the part of the law enforcement agency and/or the tow company, but certainly not on my part and I should not be blamed for their failures. As a matter of fact when I mentioned to the towing company that I might be suing, they simply told me that it was between me and the police and they had nothing to do with it. They needed their money in order to release my vehicle, and they had nothing to do with anything further.
You responded to my initial post with a post of your own, kelbro. Remember that post? You decided to delete it shortly after posting it, however (wise choice), and you later edited your first post.
As for the second post I accidentally hit the submit button instead of the preview button and wasn't ready to post until I re-read it and made sure it said just what I wanted to say which was the main reason I deleted it almost immediately. To be honest though, don't recall
exactly what I said in my second post because I decided that it made more sense to add the additional information to my original post instead. Did you actually even see the deleted post or did you just assume me to be guilty of something because you saw that I had deleted a post? I don't have any way to see what I wrote, so I can't say for sure
exactly what it said, but I can't imagine it was anything worth condemning me for.
As for the edited post, it was edited to add the information there as mentioned in the edit notes. There was nothing in my original post that should have offended any normal person, especially one whom I have never met or had any dealings with before, and you know full well that it was not edited for that reason or you would have attacked me in your first post instead of waiting weeks for another response from me before doing so.
The link was provided by me so that others would know you had posted a NEW question to your OTHER thread - and it was also provided for background information, information that can be helpful for forum members who provide advice. I see that no one answered your additional question to your other thread so I suppose that is my fault as well, huh?
So you provided the link to that thread so that somebody else in a completely unrelated thread could explain to me the meaning and implications of signing a paper saying that I would agree to that case being dismissed "without prejudice" rather than take a few seconds to answer the question yourself? Interesting...
As for background information that has nothing to do with the case at hand, I don't see confusing the issue as being at all helpful to anyone, especially to those who may have answered my question if you had not confused the issue by throwing something into the discussion that had absolutely nothing to do with
this discussion.
I saw no response at all from you anywhere in the other discussion, so why would I possibly blame you? In case you (or anyone else cares) I didn't sign the paper they asked me to sign, so I guess I will just wait and find out whether or not I should have by what happens next. I guess the worst they can do is attempt the lawsuit again, but I doubt they will since I have already shown them (and the court) absolute evidence of my innocence, which is why they decided to drop the lawsuit in the first place.
The fact that I chose not to provide additional information to you was based on several factors - and your deleted second post was one reason. Time constraints on my part was another. I have a full-time job with work that takes priority over any postings here and I try to limit my posting to those posters whom I believe deserve attention and will appreciate it. I did not see you as such a poster - and I still don't.
As I stated previously, my deleted post was only there for about 30 seconds before I changed my mind about posting it as a reply, and added the information as additional information at the bottom of my first post instead. The deleted post was made
after your useless post, in order to clarify the situation since you chose to confuse the issue by posting irrelevant information to the discussion. As for your time constraints preventing you from answering my questions, you certainly seem to have enough time to waste trying to cause problems for others, as is evident by your argumentative responses throughout this thread.
I came here to ask a simple question. I had hoped that this forum would be a useful place to get the legal advice
as it is intended. Instead I am greeted by a bunch of childish bickering among members like you who have taken it upon themselves to attack me and each other throughout this thread. Personally, I think you should all be ashamed of yourselves.
To Nellibelle - most of the regular posters here know exactly who you are and we have known this from the beginning.
As I am not a regular poster and don't know any of you, I cannot speak for Nellibelle or anyone else, but comments such as this and others made by several members throughout this discussion are examples of the childish bickering referred to above.
