100mph in a 50 zone.

[HighwayMan]

First, to reiterate, this is a NY speeding ticket...

Thank you for your insight. I appreciate the advice. I suppose a suspension is better than a revoke. How long would a suspension be? From what I have been told, It could be 30 days, lawyer could push 31 for a restricted license, correct?

I don't know what the minimum suspension is for this, probably 30 days. And you are correct, a minimum 31 day suspension is required for restricted license eligibility. Be aware, if you do get a restricted license, and get ANY type of traffic ticket (I believe even a seat belt) your driving privilege will be revoked for up to 5 years.

The officers really had jeans and a t-shirt. It took me by surprise but it's true. The very top of the ticket states "NYPDHP" I can only assume that’s New York Police Department Highway Patrol. The "In Violation of (Section and Subdivision" was left blank.

I believe you are truthful, but that is just unbelievable. What time of day was this (approximately)? Highway Patrol only works in uniform, that must be some story (on the officer's part). Was it a marked car?

The violation was not left blank, there is a "fill in the circle" (which may be hard to see on your copy) for "1180d".

I apologize for being paranoid but again, this is the first time I've ever been in trouble with the law. Nevertheless, this took place at Interstate 895, The Sheridan Express way.

Okay, it was Highway 1 covering the Bronx.

The lawyer which I have asked to represent me has over 25 years of experience dealing with traffic violations, was a former judge and prosecutor. How good he is, I have no idea but I pray he is not someone out to simply grab my money and rush out of court. I am hopeful I could some how establish some type of rapport with him but he is in and out of court all the time.

Does anyone recommend an excellent traffic lawyer in the New York City area?

Honestly, no matter how good the attorney is he will probably lose. Highway Patrol officers, or any precinct summons officer, is so experienced testifying in the TVB that the chances of them leaving something out of their testimony or not being able to handle an attorney is slim to none. You're best off hiring one of the attorneys who works in the Bronx TVB - they know the system and can best serve you if you insist on hiring one.

Go there sometime and you'll see them in the hallway outside the court rooms on the first floor of the Bronx TVB. It's at 696 East Fordham Road at the corner of Crotona Avenue.

 

[HighwayMan]

Where do I begin?

Doesn't much matter, it's all wrong.

it's my understanding, The traffic summons is defective for, no Seal of a courd of Record and no clerk or judge signed the summons for starters.

You have no clue. The summons was not defective, at least not for the bogus reasons you state.

I would challange personal and subject matter jurisdiction of this adminsitrative court by special appearance.

Good luck.

In many jurisdictions, courts that have the power to fine or imprison must be courts of Record.

Not in THIS jurisdiction.

 

[CdwJava]

First, to reiterate, this is a NY speeding ticket...

Oops ... I was responding to so many of Dillon's odd posts I forgot which one i was replying to ... I'm not sure how citations or summonses must be constructed in your state, but I suspect that the way they come from the officer is just fine and dandy.

 

[Dillon]

Doesn't much matter, it's all wrong.


You have no clue. The summons was not defective, at least not for the bogus reasons you state.

so, what reason was it defective for?

a traffic/administrative summons has no Court of Record Seal and not signed by a clerk or judge, and you think thats not a problem legally. where did you learn law? on Mars?

you do know that police cant issue summonses?, that whole separation of powers thing.

judge didnt issue it, the officer cant, so how is anyone legally required to appear on a defective summons?


Note: "A ‘Summons’ may be served by any person who is at least 18 years of age and not a party to the action. The prohibition of personal service of process by parties is to discourage "fraudulent service by people with an adversarial interest in an action."

how about this bogus reason? the Officer, himself, "served a Copy" of the said summons and is a party who has an "adversarial interest" in the instant matter and its against the rules of court.

the officer is technically the plantiff, i mean he/she did sign the original complaint under penalty of perjury and is an adversarial party to the instant matter, Right?

there is more, do your homework

 

[Dillon]

Oops ... ... I'm not sure how citations or summonses must be constructed in your state, but I suspect that the way they come from the officer is just fine and dandy.

its my understanding, that the STATE tricks the public (they are not lawyers) into appearing on defective summonses and its not fine and dandy.

its my understanding, if one appears on a defective summons without question they grant jurisdiction to these courts by their general appearance alone.


With all due respect, its just another dog and pony show to collect revenue, not about justice and police have no clue. they just follow orders, Right?

 

[davidmcbeth3]

your right on that point

its my understanding, that the STATE tricks the public (they are not lawyers) into appearing on defective summonses and its not fine and dandy.

its my understanding, if one appears on a defective summons without question they grant jurisdiction to these courts by their general appearance alone.


With all due respect, its just another dog and pony show to collect revenue, not about justice and police have no clue. they just follow orders, Right?

In fact, in most states you can find a law or court rule that will require the state to file an information regarding the ticket...but you have to ask for it via the method that is appropriate

 

[davidmcbeth3]

you must be goofy - STD rules of evidence applies

I hate to say this, but you sir are a MORON.

You know nothing about the New York City Police Department, you know nothing about the DMV Traffic Violations Bureau (TVB), you know nothing about the rules of evidence in the TVB, or the required elements of testimony.

All you do is post misleading nonsense which serves only to confuse people looking for advice. You are dangerous.

Maybe I know more than you think. Are you a cop? HS diploma maybe?? You ever file a case in state court? Federal court? Appellate court? I dont think so; cause you behave like a five year old. If you wish to discuss or argue points then argue your point.

I have never lost a LIDAR ticket case; never have the cop's testimony been adequate; and I have always created enough doubt that I always win by a motion for summary judgment or motion of aqquittal after the state rests. So, I have never perjured myself - unlike most NYPD.

NYC is a crapper .... they violate our constitutional rights EVERY DAY ... if NYC got nuked tomorrow I would not care.

BAM! Case closed.

 

[StevenJ_420Law]

In fact, in most states you can find a law or court rule that will require the state to file an information regarding the ticket...but you have to ask for it via the method that is appropriate

Wow, thats weird NY goes through all that. In CA, informations only get filed after a prelim in a felony case. And here, all an information is is essentially an upper jurisdiction complaint.. typically word for word of the lower jurisdiction complaint.

 

[StevenJ_420Law]

i
With all due respect, its just another dog and pony show to collect revenue, not about justice and police have no clue. they just follow orders, Right?

This is very true.

But it IS... so you cant fight it on that basis. It wont work.

The US supreme court has historically and continues to sidestep the infraction issue. It is a kangaroo court like any other in history of man. There is no way the SCOTUS is ever going to unravel the unconstitutional infraction "justice" system in place in the USA. Never. Its too much to the states. The interest of the government too heavy. They leave it to the states and the state has decided it really likes your money and without jury trial, counsel, or virtually any other right. In CA, the judges prosecute you. How unconstitutional is that?
Officers trained in how to testify and experienced in doing so say the same thing, week after week winning 98% of their cases. Correct that, I will not say they are all exactly the same. Some are REALLY REALLY good. I know a few you will never win ever. Never. They are 99.8% losing only when a witness doesnt show in a citizens arrest or some such.

But for the weak officers, if the officer doesnt testify enough to find you guilty, the judge will ask the officer and you questions until he gets that info, then youre done. Isnt that nice?

In fact, some officers get so used to the judge, they intentionally leave out stuff they know the judge wants to hear, knowing the judge day after day asks the officers that same question as part of the "trial". Then the officer gives the same answer he gave this same judge 100X before. While they've never met and discussed what they are doing, they do this every few days. Its a true dog and pony show.

State judges enforce state law. So a judge cant rule in your favor on this off the wall goofy stuff (like the US Constitution), even if over tea, he would agree with you (and he probably wouldnt agree). That is not their job. The judges job is to enforce state law. He starts goofing with this constitutionalist bs and he would be off the bench quicker than you can zip up a robe.

You guys waste your time.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Maybe I know more than you think. Are you a cop? HS diploma maybe?? You ever file a case in state court? Federal court? Appellate court? I dont think so; cause you behave like a five year old. If you wish to discuss or argue points then argue your point.

I have never lost a LIDAR ticket case; never have the cop's testimony been adequate; and I have always created enough doubt that I always win by a motion for summary judgment or motion of aqquittal after the state rests. So, I have never perjured myself - unlike most NYPD.

NYC is a crapper .... they violate our constitutional rights EVERY DAY ... if NYC got nuked tomorrow I would not care.

BAM! Case closed.

You post one, single, solitary legal cite that says the "Standard" rules of evidence (whatever the hell that may be) apply before an ALJ at the TVB and I will never, ever, correct one of your ridiculous posts again.

The clock is ticking.

 

[HighwayMan]

Note: "A ‘Summons’ may be served by any person who is at least 18 years of age and not a party to the action.

I won't even respond to the rest of the drivel in your post.

You obviously know nothing about the law, at least not in New York.

A summons may be served on anyone 16 years of age or older.

 

[HighwayMan]

so, what reason was it defective for?

Apparently it's not defective.

I would have to look at it to see if it was.

 

[HighwayMan]

NYC is a crapper .... they violate our constitutional rights EVERY DAY ... if NYC got nuked tomorrow I would not care.

BAM! Case closed.

What a compelling argument.

 

[HighwayMan]

But for the weak officers, if the officer doesnt testify enough to find you guilty, the judge will ask the officer and you questions until he gets that info, then youre done. Isnt that nice?

No, not in the Traffic Violations Bureau. If an officer leaves anything out of his direct testimony and by doing so fails to cover the required facts and points it's a not guilty.

 

[HighwayMan]

Why is it that the New York threads seem to bring all the nuts out of the woodwork?