It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Indiana: City Threatens $2500 Fines for Challenging Traffic Tickets

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Indiana: City Threatens $2500 Fines for Challenging Traffic Tickets


www.thenewspaper.com

In traffic court, Judge William Young has been making good on the threats by routinely siding with police officers in disputes and imposing fines of up to $500 on anyone who challenges a moving violation ticket, no matter how minor, and loses. Those who pay without going to court do not face this extra fine.

"Unfortunately what you have happen a lot of times is that judges aren't particularly worried about whether what they're doing may be violating the law as the odds of someone ever appealing a $400 traffic ticket is remote," Ogden wrote. "I see it all the time. Trial judges flouting the law knowing they are unlikely to ever be challenged on an appeal because the litigants can't afford it."
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 10-12-2009 by DimensionalDetective]




posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   
LOL, remind me to never visit Indianapolis, home of the totalitarian, corrupt court system.

What a joke.

"Don't you DARE challenge our authority peon, otherwise we will take you to the cleaners!" Guess they want to make sure they can keep wracking up their revenues uncontested with micky mouse, ridiculous traffic citations.

Craziest thing that comes across my mind when I read garbage like this is, "Have these people all forgotten exactly who it is that is paying their salaries?" The very folks they are stomping all over! Ugh

Hopefully these lawyers get this overturned.

www.thenewspaper.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
You know, I can almost see where he's coming from on this. (Not that I agree with it to any degree.) He probably thinks that the people are merely wasting the courts time to be difficult. Unfortunately it's this kind of thinking that slowly chips away at an individuals rights in our court system. Alone it may not seem like much but over time the damage can be great.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThorinOak
You know, I can almost see where he's coming from on this. (Not that I agree with it to any degree.) He probably thinks that the people are merely wasting the courts time to be difficult. Unfortunately it's this kind of thinking that slowly chips away at an individuals rights in our court system. Alone it may not seem like much but over time the damage can be great.


The only reason this judge has a job is because TRAFFIC court exists.

If he doesn't like his job, he can go back to ripping people off the old fashioned way: Be a lawyer.

I agree with the OP - this is extortion. Its akin to Phillip Morris buying out nicorette.

Win/Win...except in this case, the judge works in conjunction w/ the police department. Fine + Court Fee when you loose.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
I thought this was standard practice in every traffic court, the difference here is the level of additional penalty and the fact that they are broadcasting it.

It's the exact same process as a plea deal for a more serious crime - take 5 years now, or go to trial and face 20 years.

If you defend a traffic ticket and lose, the penalty is always more than you would have originally paid - these guys are just pushing the envelope that much further.

Blocking someone from attending court however IS illegal, and is certainly indicative of the court's mindset.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


A lot of states are broke.This could be a ploy to increase funds into the states treasury.
The courts always side with the police officers,so pay the ticket.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
There's probably a little more to this.

First, it's pretty common knowledge that going to court and fighting a ticket will generally result in either a reduced fine OR reduced points.

Second, with money being tight, the people that used to just pay the fine (thinking that anytime in court is not worth the savings) are now attempting to fight them in order to save whatever money they can.

Third, with higher unemployment rates, more people are available to go to court to fight the tickets.

Fourth, police forces are trying to acquire as much revenue as possible to prevent any lay-offs and an easy way to do this is to issue more tickets.

Fifth, the courts probably have the same number of employees -- if not less -- to deal with what is now a lot more people and cases.


I don't however think it's all that fair to impose such enormous fines. I can see the point he's trying to make, but it is an American's right to have their day in court without fear of going broke if you don't "win".

Blanket rules like this never take into account that there are people included in this that truly thought they had a case and unfortunately found out later they didn't.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


And


Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Case Dismissed. Or would his honor like a very large suit levied against him, the municipality, the county and the state?



[edit on 10-12-2009 by Ahabstar]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.



Except in the case of Traffic or DUI violations.

Next time you renew your driver's license, read the small print of what you are signing. In most states you specifically waive some of your rights under the Constitution in order to have the PRIVLEDGE of driving. Why do you think there is a Traffic Court in the first place?



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by JIMC5499
 


Interesting, but since I have a CDL I will have to double check. I could then argue that if the CDL is considered a full legal contract then the judge would be setting president in that a CDL is not just a permit.

That in fact it would be a business license. If the judge is aware of the full implications of agreeing to that statement, he would have just became a hero to about 3.2 million people. That is of course a "higher authority" did not immediately step in to overturn his case and review all his previous cases.

The reason I say that, is that truck drivers have a problem with their job classification. The job is considered unskilled for many purposes although many of the requirements fall under skilled professions. To finalize the distinction would result in either some very rich drivers or an elimination of a huge amount of restrictions imposed by several federal governing bodies (which would make some very rich drivers).

If I had studied law formally I could cite the case, but I think there is a precedence of if a contract is unlawful the terms of the contract are nullified. So either they can or cannot circumvent Constitutional rights as a condition of having the "privileged" to drive under a general operator's license.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


They are the Government, who's going to challenge them? My favorite one was the guy in Pennsylvania who got stopped for DUI in a stolen car. They could charge him for everything except DUI. See he had never had a driver's license and therefore didn't come under the Motor Vehicle Code. They have since added DUI to the Criminal Code.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Except in the case of Traffic or DUI violations.

That is correct, driving, or being issued a drivers license, is a privilege not a right. Your driving privilege can be revoked or suspended according to the rules you agreed to when you "applied" for a license.

In Calif "DL 44" the form filled out to get a license, is clearly labeled as “Driver License or Identification Card Application”

In Los Angeles county 12500vc, unlicensed driver, carries a sentence of 30 days in jail.. however driving on a "suspended" or "revoked" license 14601vc is worse, 45 days, because you promised you wouldn't when you signed the application.

As an FYI.. although sentenced to 30 or 45 days, the LA Sheriffs are under-staffed, the jails over crowded to the point federal courts have called a few "unconstitutional" so depending on your record ('rap sheet') & medical issues time served will be from 12 hours to 3-10 days (10-20%). Only chronic violators do the full 30-45 days.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join