3 comments on “The Great Traffic Scam Our Local Government at Work

  1. Not only is it unethical, it’s actually illegal what they’re doing yet no one seems to pick up on it. I was in traffic court recently being attacked by the prosecutor, the officer who ticketed me as well as the judge just for pleading “not guilty” and actually citing the law which proved I am innocent — his response? You’re guilty because the officer said so (no evidence needed) and pay by September 11 LOL (I am brown).

    How do you fight these fat losers sitting up on the judge’s seat abusing their power?

  2. You fight these by doing exactly what I described in te above article. If you are convicted in city court, most jurisdictions have the give the defendant the option to appeal to a jury trial. At that point your odds of aquittal increase astronomically. If I can help in any way feel free to contact me.

  3. I agree enormously with everything you say here, but getting mass amounts of people to fight tickets in court is, unfortunately, not realistic. A huge part of the problem is the un-constitutional denial of a trial by jury for such matters. Most would argue that a jury trial is silly, cumbersome and too expensive for menial violations and infractions. I say, too bad. The constitution clearly states trial by jury, and it was the founding fathers intent to place that in there to prevent exactly the sort of abuse that goes on in traffic and municipal courts every day. In my state of New Jersey, they don’t even allow juries for D.U.I. because some state supreme court chief justice arbitrarily decided it wasn’t needed some 30 years ago and has been the standard ever since. The New Jersey state constitution even states that “all crimes be tried by jury.

    A stream lined system could be instituted. A separate jury for each case need not be done. A single jury could be impanelled for each court session, or maybe even a full week, and they’d just take a simple vote with the majority rule making the decision. If there is a tie, then the judge could break the tie even though we all know where that would lead.

    There should also be a specific time limit for what constitutes a “speedy trial.” I believe most cases should be resolved within 45 days of the occurrence no matter what, unless the defense wants a delay. The state should be fully prepared to proceed within a specific time frame regardless of what may be the officers schedule or other issues.

    I recently attended a municipal court session with my son to observe for one of his Scout merit badges. One traffic case got rescheduled for the 4th time because the officer was on night shift, even though the defendant had a lawyer and the officer had been subpoenaed. Another was supposed to have been tried, but was rescheduled after waiting 30 minutes for the officer who was “on his way,” but never showed without any explanation. One was dismissed, but the defendant had been there 6 times before and was finally told that the officer had retired and moved out of state.

    The state, just like people, need mandated laws and specifics to follow. We cannot rely on the honesty or “honorability:” of the police or the courts. There really is no honor in what any of them do. The power of the police to stop anyone for any reason and without any evidence of a violation is part of what makes it all so unfair and wrong. Even when evidence, such as the officers own dash cam or body cam is “available,” it’s only made readily available when it benefits the prosecution. Try getting it when it benefits the defense. It’s worse than pulling teeth.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s