Neither is "seperation of church and state", but it is a tennant that is practiced routinely in our system of government.Don't count on it being a winner.
By the way, Jim, "innocent until proven guilty" is found nowhere in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence.
Do your research.
What is a "tennant"?Neither is "seperation of church and state", but it is a tennant that is practiced routinely in our system of government.
BTW... I find your signature line to be ironic considering the "you're guilty" attitude without even attempting to provide counsel, courtesy or countenance.
Innocent Until Proven Guilty:
The Origins of a Legal Maxim
Papal Justice and Due Process
The maxim, Innocent until proven guilty, has had a good run in the twentieth century. The United Nations incorporated the principle in its Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 under article eleven, section one. The maxim also found a place in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights in 1953 [as article 6, section 2] and was incorporated into the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [as article 14, section 2]. This was a satisfying development for Americans because there are few maxims that have a greater resonance in Anglo-American, common law jurisprudence. The Anglo-American reverence for the maxim does pose an interesting conundrum: it cannot be found in Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the Declaration of Independence, or in the Constitution of the United States; and not, I might add, in the works of the great English jurists, Bracton, Coke, and Blackstone. Nevertheless, some scholars have claimed that the maxim has been firmly embedded in English jurisprudence since earliest times.
When you have a lucid, intellegent point to make concerning the OP's case and a possible defense that he could use, you should post it here. The rest of the crap that you are spewing is merely the ramblings of a troll.Gosh darn it, your intellectual capacity is really sharp!
Very interesting. However, you understand you cannot use that document in your trial de novo. But, it will give you an idea of what his approach will be. I'd make the argument that 22350 meant that he was not relying on the school zone and that he is subject to the speed trap laws. Therefore, he will need to bring to court a copy of the speed survey that justifies the prima facie limit (which he probably won't have). Good luck.Thanks, Jim. I actually have filed a Trial De Novo so am trying to prepare and figure out my best strategy.
I went down to the traffic court and asked for a copy of the officer's declaration so I would know what his argument is. It seems pretty standard as if almost a form that they fill out with the appropriate info. He covered all the basis even going into detail on his radar training, calibration of the unit, visual estimate of my speed prior to using the radar (which of course confirmed my speed).
Basic Speed Law22350 doesn't mention ANY speed limit