sukharev said:
OK, let me get the record straight here.
Okay, let ME set the record straight here!!
No you're not. You are giving your GENERAL opinions... without ANY basis or knowledge of the law. And since this is a LEGAL ADVICE site.... your OPINION, if not based in law, is without value to the OP.
not merely answering direct questions.
Why not?? The entire purpose of this site is for people to ask questions of a LEGAL nature.... and to hopefully get LEGALLY accurate advice to those questions. If they want a moral or general 'opinion', they can post at the Oprah or Dr Phil websites.
I am also honest as to whether my advice is based on knowledge or an educated guess.
And where EXACTLY is that disclaimer in your post??
I believe poohmantbb has done the same thing, and was also "assuming", not stating facts.
You 'believe' incorrectly. Where in 'Poohmans' did he make ANY guess as to what impact this ticket might have on the OP in California?? He (poohman) ACCURATELY suggested that "Ask CdwJava, he may know more about what California would do."
2) With regards to the usefulness of my advice, it's up to OP to decide, not you.
See, you are mistaken again. OP's are often (and expected) to be ignorant of the laws.... that is why they are on this forum asking for advice. If your incorrect 'guesses' are the only response that they see, how are they to know that it is full of crap as we do??
So, yep, when appropriate, I 'warn' the OP to ignore ignorant responses to their posts.
If you say that suggesting to try pretrial bargain to avoid license suspension is not a good advice, you are wrong, exactly because of what poohmantbb suggested, that is suspension in CA may follow.
And EXACTLY where did the OP ask anything about a possible suspension of their California license???
However, if they had asked if there was any possible impact on their CA license due to a conviction (106 in a 65), the CORRECT answer would have been:
Yes. Both states (CA and IL) are members of the Drivers License Compact, so the IL conviction would be reported to CA. And according to the CA Vehicle Code (Section 15023.B), the violation would be treated the same in CA.... which is:
California Vehicle Code:
22348. (a) Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 22351, a person shall not drive a vehicle upon a highway with a speed limit established pursuant to Section 22349 or 22356 at a speed greater than that speed limit.
(b) A person who drives a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 100 miles per hour is guilty of an infraction punishable, as follows:
(1) Upon a first conviction of a violation of this subdivision, by a fine of not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500). The court may also suspend the privilege of the person to operate a motor vehicle for a period not to exceed 30 days pursuant to Section 13200.5.
However, this is likely an exception to the rule, as generally out-of-state violations are poorly transferred, due to gross mismatches in judicial systems and poor IT support between states.
And where did you get that crap?? Please provide a link to ANYTHING to support your 'belief stated as fact'.