- Messages
- 1,770
- Classified ads
- 1
You came at me with, "That is nice in theory, but not always true in practice. Consider the case where an officer committed proven perjury (his statements clearly conflicted with dashcam video), when it was stated to the "judge", the "judge" said "he hasn't been charged with perjury". The officer committed perjury numerous times, but the court is just as corrupt and no one will do anything about it."
Okay, now in what Universe is anything "always true in practice" and why does this need to be explained to you? Have you never taken a logic class?
And now, you're accusing me of "attacking" you (charged language) because you made some vapid non-point as some kind of "counterpoint"?
First, I will ignore your emotional baiting language. Let's stick to the facts here.
1. The method by which one fights tickets IS NOT CHANGED by actions taken by the cops (witness) or judge. You need to really take that on board before you respond emotionally.
2. The procedure one uses to fight tickets using an affirmative or technical defense is, shocker, NOT A GUARANTEE OF SUCCESS. Why does this need to be explained to you? You should know this just by your understanding of rudimentary logic. You can fish, but that doesn't mean you catch. You can shoot at a target, but that doesn't guarantee you'll hit where you're aiming.
3. Your characterization of what I think (without actually knowing) is just a strawman fallacy with some Ad Hominem. You're trying to discredit me (for some reason) with your strange and invented narrative. That doesn't work with tickets unless the cop does something outrageous. You should be less emotional if you have any hope of fighting unwarranted tickets. Really, being more stoic would be helpful in all areas of life.
4. None of my "claims" are false despite your false narrative. How on Earth would you even know such a thing or hope to prove it? Is this how you act when pulled over? None of this will help you with tickets, or in life.
"You are guessing wrong. I was falsely charged and the the officer committed PROVEN perjury numerous times and the corrupt judge responded that he hadn't been charged with perjury. The dashcam video conflicted with his claims. Reality didn't matter. Another case the officer was also proven to lie multiple times, the corrupt judge didn't care. He couldn't have been where he claimed to be (which was false) and see what he claimed to be able to see. His testimony conflicted with his own bodycam video and he admitted what he said was false, yet the corrupt judge said guilty."
Now you're into your statement of facts for some case in which you're involved. Why is your invective directed at me? What was it you were trying to prove to the judge? ALL of this should go in your statement of facts, which perhaps you already submitted. Did you simply show up in court or did you try to fight this by TBD (Trial by Written Declaration)? If you don't have the temperament or patience for this, it might be a good idea to hire a lawyer though odds are that it's too late to appeal, but maybe not. Appeals can and do happen.
I am also NOT trying to guess the facts of your case and I am not your lawyer, nor am I a lawyer at all. I was just saying in this thread that the procedure is easy ONCE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING. That's it. I wasn't making any claims about success or failure, or your peculiar skill at presenting your defense.
The reality is that all of this takes practice, knowledge, reading, patience, stoicism, determination, courage, etc. It's not something you should take on half-cocked and unprepared. Sometimes you will do everything "right" and still lose, though it's possible you missed some things.
In your defense (even though I'm not inclined to steelman you), it sounds like you attempted to gather evidence, but as always one would need all the facts of the case in order to know how best to mount an affirmative defense.
Sometimes the witness (cop) lies. Often the judge is inclined to find in their favor unless the cop fails to show. I had one judge disagree with my defense but he was still obligated to find me not guilty because of the defense I mounted, and this assumes the cop even responds to the TBD. If more than one cop was involved, they all have to respond, e.g., spotter, LIDAR-operator, ticket-writer, etc. This complicated things for the witness's side.
Anyway, I'm not here to fight you, and I don't know where your hostility comes from. Inventing strawman narratives in your head might make you feel better, but ultimately it doesn't help you and won't let you learn from my experience, even if you pretend to think it's false.
The time to show that a cop (witness) is lying is with your statement of facts. Hint for next time (not legal advice); consider a TBD first (Trial by Written Declaration) and THEN a Trial-De-Novo if you lose (new trial). This means a new judge and a new chance to mount your defense, possibly learning from the first time. I know this because of all my "fake" experience (per you), and this gives you two chances (with two different judges) to win. In the day of ubiquitous Internet, a lot of people still don't know this. Since your primary complaint is about corruption, this method would have been ideal for you, and you're getting this information (ironically) from someone whom you claim isn't being honest about his experience.
Sometimes you can do everything right and still lose. It happens, but that's the court system. Look at what happened with Lindsay freakin' Clancy. 11 morons wanted to find her Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity and one man held the line, and it ended in a mistrial. I'm hoping that the prosecution does better with jury-selection next time.
Good luck out there.
TLDR: This is why you fail. Reading is fundamental.
Last edited:
