judge denied continuance for no good cause

[brenside]

I believe i do people vs Scott William Peterson. Calibration of radar tuning forks. Matters of federal law and trafffic survey. Officer used radar gun pointing up hill as i traveled down hill which is considered entrapment and survey for traffic speeds cannot be conducted on hills and must be conducted on flat ground due to the varibles caused to speed on hills
[/QUOTE=
I also aked the court clerk if my apperance could be telephoned or video, which they do not do for traffic court. I am not trying to say i have any thing coming i just dont understand how a schedle conflct is acceptable for a continuance for one party but not the other which makes it very hard for me to buy into this judge being fair and impartial.

 

[brenside]

Okay. You might want to consider an appeal. You will no doubt benefit from having an attorney assist you.

Good luck.

thank you

 

[cbg]

"It would be more convenient for my boss if it could be on a Friday or Monday" and "I am already scheduled to be in another courtroom at that time" are not equivalent "schedule conflicts".

 

[quincy]

There can be all sorts of reasons for a judge to grant one party’s request for a continuance and not another. The judge might have scheduling conflicts of his own, for example, that made it difficult for him to grant your request.

 

[brenside]

The problem is that continuances are granted at the discretion of the judge. The judge does not have to agree to change any hearing date and your hearing has been rescheduled once already.

Did you check the court website to see what it says about continuances?

i could not find anything related to traffic court for contiuance on the court web site

 

[brenside]

"It would be more convenient for my boss if it could be on a Friday or Monday" and "I am already scheduled to be in another courtroom at that time" are not equivalent "schedule conflicts".

why woud you asume he was scheduled in another court room at that time

 

[brenside]

why woud you asume he was scheduled in another court room at that time when that was not the reason cited?

 

[cbg]

why woud you asume he was scheduled in another court room at that time

Why would you assume that he was not?

 

[quincy]

It really does not really matter at this point why the officer’s request was granted. The judge decided to grant the officer’s request for a continuance.

Your request for a continuance was denied, you did not appear in court as scheduled, and now you are left to pay or appeal.

Good luck.

 

[commentator]

This is the same OP
who believes they were forced to quit a job unjustly. It's just that you do not have as many legal rights and protections under the law as many think.

 

[quincy]

This is the same OP
who believes they were forced to quit a job unjustly. It's just that you do not have as many legal rights and protections under the law as many think.

brenside does have another thread about leaving Oregon to take a job in Montana. The Montana town clerk apparently turned the town against him, so he quit the job.

He might have a legal action to pursue against the town clerk, depending on what the clerk said about him.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Okay. You might want to consider an appeal. You will no doubt benefit from having an attorney assist you.

An attorney is good idea. However, as brenside lost because he/she failed to appear at the hearing, I'm not seeing any issues for appeal. An appeal requires pointing to a legal error made by the court and there isn't any information in this thread to suggest that the court made any errors. Appealing claiming legal error for denying the continuance would be a real long shot since brenside would likely have to show the judge abused his/her discretion, a tough standard to meet.

The problem is that brenside never got to present his/her defense. And to remedy that, brenside likely needs to get the decision set aside based on the court rule I cited earlier. If the decision is set aside, a new trial will be set and the OP would have the chance to present that defense.

 

[quincy]

That sounds reasonable.

 

[adjusterjack]

If the decision is set aside, a new trial will be set and the OP would have the chance to present that defense.

Possibly on a Wednesday and another 16 hour round trip

 

[quincy]

And 16 hours driving the speed limit, lest he find himself with yet another speeding ticket to defend against.