I'm thinking about taking on the ticket at my UC school. Here's some background information.
Location got tickted: "Lot X"
Parking "rule" (before 01/27): permit A is allowed.
Parking "rule" (on and after 01/27): permit A is not allowed allowed Mon-Fri 07:00-16:00. Anytime except the timeframe is allowed.**
Date and time I got the citation: 02/23; 13:29.
Situation: I was parking at Lot X for than a year before the citation, and it's my belief that most people do not check the sign at the lot they were parking for such a long time. So I appealed for the first level hearing, because I found no announcement in my school's newspaper nor weekly e-mails.
First level hearing verdict: 1. "As stated on the lot entrance sign, the permit displayed is not valid in this lot." 2. "Email notification sent to all student commuter permit holders stating that the permit displayed is not valid in lot 8."
Ground for my second level hearing: 1. As noted in **, this is false. This is backed by Google Cache, and the fact nor do I see a second announcement about this mentioning. 2. I did not receive such e-mail, nor in the spam-filter. I'm therefore requesting a proof of the e-mail delivery, the e-mail content, and the email addresses which they send out, which should include mine. They should provide the evidence because they are the prosecution.***
Question: Are my reasons for second level hearing valid? I know *** is true when fighting speeding ticket, but VC 40230 does not use the term defendent and prosecution, but contestant and agency. And assuming the agency just want to keep the money, what's the likely chance that traffic trial commissioner will rule in favor of me if I take it to the court?
Thanks for reading this. What is the name of your state?
Location got tickted: "Lot X"
Parking "rule" (before 01/27): permit A is allowed.
Parking "rule" (on and after 01/27): permit A is not allowed allowed Mon-Fri 07:00-16:00. Anytime except the timeframe is allowed.**
Date and time I got the citation: 02/23; 13:29.
Situation: I was parking at Lot X for than a year before the citation, and it's my belief that most people do not check the sign at the lot they were parking for such a long time. So I appealed for the first level hearing, because I found no announcement in my school's newspaper nor weekly e-mails.
First level hearing verdict: 1. "As stated on the lot entrance sign, the permit displayed is not valid in this lot." 2. "Email notification sent to all student commuter permit holders stating that the permit displayed is not valid in lot 8."
Ground for my second level hearing: 1. As noted in **, this is false. This is backed by Google Cache, and the fact nor do I see a second announcement about this mentioning. 2. I did not receive such e-mail, nor in the spam-filter. I'm therefore requesting a proof of the e-mail delivery, the e-mail content, and the email addresses which they send out, which should include mine. They should provide the evidence because they are the prosecution.***
Question: Are my reasons for second level hearing valid? I know *** is true when fighting speeding ticket, but VC 40230 does not use the term defendent and prosecution, but contestant and agency. And assuming the agency just want to keep the money, what's the likely chance that traffic trial commissioner will rule in favor of me if I take it to the court?
Thanks for reading this. What is the name of your state?