100mph in a 50 zone.

[pattytx]

I'm suprised they didn't take you to jail immediately for reckless endangerment.

 

[quincy]

Why is it that so many competent forum members seem to be letting these nut jobs hijack every thread?

I have run across several threads now where a question is asked (about New York law, Michigan law, Vermont law) and the original question is often never answered but instead is totally lost in a maze of non-legal half-intelligible off-topic crap about California tickets, written by posters who think this forum is their own personal blog.

Perhaps if, as cyjeff recommended, you just skip over the nonsense and don't entertain these posters by responding to every stupid comment they make, they will all go play somewhere else??


(sorry for my own hijack here)

 

[pattytx]

Why is it that so many competent forum members seem to be letting these nut jobs hijack every thread?

I have run across several threads now where a question is asked (about New York law, Michigan law, Vermont law) and the original question is often never answered but instead is totally lost in a maze of non-legal half-intelligible off-topic crap about California tickets, written by posters who think this forum is their own personal blog.

Perhaps if, as cyjeff recommended, you just skip over the nonsense and don't entertain these posters by responding to every stupid comment they make, they will all go play somewhere else??


(sorry for my own hijack here)

Honestly, I didn't read the whole thread; who would?

Oops. I sit corrected.

 

[quincy]

Hey, pattytx. You responded to my stupid comment. I will never go play somewhere else if you continue to do that.




(your post, by the way, was actually on-topic - my hijack was not directed at you )

 

[CdwJava]

Why is it that so many competent forum members seem to be letting these nut jobs hijack every thread?

I have run across several threads now where a question is asked (about New York law, Michigan law, Vermont law) and the original question is often never answered but instead is totally lost in a maze of non-legal half-intelligible off-topic crap about California tickets, written by posters who think this forum is their own personal blog.

Perhaps if, as cyjeff recommended, you just skip over the nonsense and don't entertain these posters by responding to every stupid comment they make, they will all go play somewhere else??


(sorry for my own hijack here)

It's like seeing the National Enquirer and that ilk at the checkstand ... you don't want to look,. you know it's B.S., but ... you just can't help yourself! You at least have to read the cover even as your pretending to be looking at the gum beneath the rack.

 

[Antigone*]

Hey, pattytx. You responded to my stupid comment. I will never go play somewhere else if you continue to do that.




(your post, by the way, was actually on-topic - my hijack was not directed at you )

I just love it when quincy hijacks.

 

[HighwayMan]

It's like seeing the National Enquirer and that ilk at the checkstand ... you don't want to look,. you know it's B.S., but ... you just can't help yourself! You at least have to read the cover even as your pretending to be looking at the gum beneath the rack.

Speaking of racks...

...especially when some starlet is exposing her cleavage on the cover...

 

[HighwayMan]

I have run across several threads now where a question is asked (about New York law, Michigan law, Vermont law) and the original question is often never answered

Just wanted to point out that in this thread, at least, the original question has been answered.

But I agree that feeding the trolls encourages them. It's tough to get everyone on the same page though. It also helps to point out to posters that the "advice" given by said trolls should be ignored.

 

[You Are Guilty]

For the record, I feel a need to keep the NY threads on track, if for no other reason than it will cut down on future questions asking the exact same thing. Y'all are free to handle the CA wingnuts any way you like



PS: Still waiting for my cite...

 

[Dillon]

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. New York is a common law jurisdiction

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

A ‘Summons’ may be served by any person/the officer who is at least 18 years of age and not a party to the action -

a police officer cant legally serve a summons at a traffic stop, he has an adversarial interest in the matter and is a party to the matter. he filed the original complaint against the alleged defendant...- technically he should be the plaintiff.

you misread it, so read it again.

 

[Dillon]

Dillon,

California has a unified court system known county by county as Superior Court. They were separate (muni/superior) some years back, now they are combined. All of them are courts of record and the Clerk of the Court (not to be confused with "Court Clerk") is the keeper of the record, as mandated by state law. There is only one Clerk of the Court each county and that is their charge and duty by law. It doesnt need to be brought up in court because it _IS_ .

SOUNDS LIKE A DOG AND PONY SHOW TO ME.

There is a separation of powers. Judicial courts cannot enforce statutes. Only legislative courts enforce statutes. "Courts enforcing statutes do not act judicially"

Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579; FRC v. GE, 281 US 464; Keller v. PE, 261 US 428.

if the judge is under oath to follow the constitution and he doesnt, then he is in contempt of court for not administing justice.

constitutions trump statutes

 

[davidmcbeth3]

Thx Highwayman

What a compelling argument.

Thank you for your praise ... I'm certain that if this statement was uttered in a NJ courtroom, you would immediately be crowned King of NJ (not that upper NJ is any less of a crapper than NYC).

I hate NYC .... just to clarify.

 

[StevenJ_420Law]

It's like seeing the National Enquirer and that ilk at the checkstand ... you don't want to look,. you know it's B.S., but ... you just can't help yourself! You at least have to read the cover even as your pretending to be looking at the gum beneath the rack.

I'll have you know National Enquirer is very accurate for good celebrity low down.

 

[davidmcbeth3]

I would bring in youtube vids showing the bogus nature of LIDAR

during cross of the cop, ask him how he avoided panning issues (not directly though). Then show what happens with LIDAR & panning issues..

Oh, you'll lose, cause its a kangaroo hearing..... I hope I am wrong so good luck.

yes, you can introduce anything in the crappy state of NY's traffic hearings .. its the freaking wild wild west so shoot em up.

 

[Proserpina]

during cross of the cop, ask him how he avoided panning issues (not directly though). Then show what happens with LIDAR & panning issues..

Oh, you'll lose, cause its a kangaroo hearing..... I hope I am wrong so good luck.

yes, you can introduce anything in the crappy state of NY's traffic hearings .. its the freaking wild wild west so shoot em up.

David hon, are you even still sober?