Not guilty, so what, pay the fine !!

 
--
"Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam" “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
Page 1>>

Double Tap

Double Tap wrote:

http://bit.ly/qcdYmI

These bastards still make you pay even if you are innocent.

Wow, that's not right. smh

Got you coming and going.

Don't fight it and you pay.
Fight it and you still pay.

Double Tap wrote:

http://bit.ly/qcdYmI

These bastards still make you pay even if you are innocent.

--
Nuvi 2460LMT.

Tax and spend state

Double Tap wrote:

http://bit.ly/qcdYmI

These bastards still make you pay even if you are innocent.

In this case it is all about money.

Only way to change it is to get rid of the "Activist" judges. And lots of luck on that.

--
Metricman Nuvi 3597 GTM-60 Traffic Receiver Williamsburg, VA

Traffic System inherently unfair

In no other portion of our justice system will the unsubstantiated testimony of a police officer get you declared guilty. Only for traffic violations. Real criminals have rights. Motorists have privledges. Fortunately the vast majority of police officers are honest. If they were not, we would have an even bigger mess.

Jim

Honest Cops?

Jim D1 said in part..

JimD1 wrote:

Fortunately the vast majority of police officers are honest. If they were not, we would have an even bigger mess.

Where did you come up with THAT thinking..!!..? You need to go to..

http:/www.injusticeeverywhere.com

and

http:/www.pixiq.com/contributors/248

Nuvi1300WTGPS

--
I'm not really lost.... just temporarily misplaced!

Think I'll write a letter to

Think I'll write a letter to the Gov to tell him how displeased I am. I went to grad school there a lifetime ago & will no longer spend a nickel in that State!!!

Fred

Fight it and pay once.

Pay it and your insurance company jumps on top...

--
Striving to make the NYC Metro area project the best.

It's great they are not greedy

Thank God they are not greedy, next they will charge you for the officers pay to give the ticket.
Eventually they will try it with somebody with the money to take it further.
I wonder how the Supreme Court will rule on that,
But you must say they do have ba**s

--
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things!

Outraegeous behavior

I'll add this to my list of outrageous, government-sponsored, legalized stick-ups of motorists along with

1. traffic enforcement cameras, especially those with fees to fight the tickets (another charming practice in Massachusetts, at one time, anyway),
2. emergency workers being allowed to charge you fees, especially when you didn't call them for help, and
3. toll roads (in my state, Illinois), doubling tolls in my area so they can build new toll roads in other areas. And by the way, tolls were supposed to be dropped once the original road construction bonds were paid off, and that happened long ago.

Mr. Sullivan is wise not to continue the fight to USOC. They probably wouldn't take the case, and if they did, he'd lose because the USOC has become extremely consumer-unfriendly. It's no longer a place to get "justice" unless you're a major corporation whose rights have been stepped on by a hapless consumer.

--
JMoo On

Cars are passe, let's hit airplanes

And so far NYPD is still in lead. Their new idea:

NYPD chief: We could take down plane if necessary

source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44666835/ns/us_news-security/#.T...

So far they are extremely underpowered with only .50 cal rifles. But I hope soon maybe they will get anti-aircraft rocked system. Something like FIM-92 Stinger in every patrol car. And in the future police around country should be equipped with tactical nukes to fight terrorism or whatever else.

It may sound like bad joke, but this time it's not some comedian, but police chief. How far it will go this time?

Boston Tea Party

I could have sworn there was a tea party that dealt with something similar, a few years back in that state.

--
Using Android Based GPS.The above post and my sig reflects my own opinions, expressed for the purpose of informing or inspiring, not commanding. Naturally, you are free to reject or embrace whatever you read.

Is the truth!

I fight one my ticket and I still have to pay a court fees. Even I won my case. sad

--
Val - Nuvi 785t and Streetpilot C340

Remember..

Remember the old addage, what goes around comes around. they'll get theres.

Unbelievable!

Double Tap wrote:

http://bit.ly/qcdYmI

These bastards still make you pay even if you are innocent.

And then they wonder why the people have a problem with the government. It's stupid decisions like this.

This one ticks me off

dagarmin wrote:

2. emergency workers being allowed to charge you fees, especially when you didn't call them for help, and

The EMTs roll on a non-injury accident when not even requested by the police.

--
1490LMT 1450LMT 295w

tolls

dagarmin wrote:

I'll add this to my list of outrageous, government-sponsored, legalized stick-ups of motorists along with

1. traffic enforcement cameras, especially those with fees to fight the tickets (another charming practice in Massachusetts, at one time, anyway),
2. emergency workers being allowed to charge you fees, especially when you didn't call them for help, and
3. toll roads (in my state, Illinois), doubling tolls in my area so they can build new toll roads in other areas. And by the way, tolls were supposed to be dropped once the original road construction bonds were paid off, and that happened long ago.

Mr. Sullivan is wise not to continue the fight to USOC. They probably wouldn't take the case, and if they did, he'd lose because the USOC has become extremely consumer-unfriendly. It's no longer a place to get "justice" unless you're a major corporation whose rights have been stepped on by a hapless consumer.

I know what you mean about the tollway increase. YIKES! Highway robbery if you ask me.

It seems that many places have a "shut up and pay" mentality. The song "I fought the law and the law won" should be changed to "The law wanted my money and got it."

Highway robbery!!!!!

Highway robbery!!!!! sad

--
http://www.poi-factory.com/node/21626 - red light cameras do not work

Curious...

... why Mr Sullivan was given "a $100 ticket for failure to stay within a marked lane" in the first place. Seems like maybe something else was going on.

Yeah, I know it's not the point of this thread, which is concerning unfair fees.

--
Tuckahoe Mike - Nuvi 3490LMT, Nuvi 260W, iPhone X, Mazda MX-5 Nav

Outrageous! Reminds me of my

Outrageous!

Reminds me of my experience with traffic court in Brooklyn 15 years ago. I was innocent (really!). When I got before the judge he essentially refused to listen at all, chastised me for not having a lawyer (for a $120 ticket?)and increased my fine 50%. The message I got was guilty or not, pay the fine unless it's a whopper in which case pay one of his buddies before pleading innocence.

--
Lost on LI

You're Correct

bsp131 wrote:
Double Tap wrote:

http://bit.ly/qcdYmI

These bastards still make you pay even if you are innocent.

And then they wonder why the people have a problem with the government. It's stupid decisions like this.

Government can't do anything correct. They remind me of our polititions (republican and democrat) that only care about theirselves, getting reelected and not helping the people. This is disgusting.

--
Larry - Nuvi 680, Nuvi 1690, Nuvi 2797LMT

the message

I guess the message is if you get an unfair traffic citation, make sure you kill someone - because a murderer can get his case heard for free...

that's just wrong... glad i

that's just wrong... glad i don't live in Massachusetts!

No surprise

Hearing this is no surprise to me. It sounds like Massachusetts' traffic court system serves the same function as Illinois' traffic court system - to generate revenue. This is a sad, but true reality of the system.

Innocence not the issue.

I have been following this thread since it was first posted wondering whether anyone would question the otiginal title which was "Not guilty, so what, pay the fine !!"

This case did not result in Ralph C. Sullivan paying a "fine". He was found guilty on the infraction of "failure to stay within a marked lane" by a clerk-magistrate. Sullivan appealed to a District Court judge who found him not responsible for the alleged violation. The "fine" in question was $100.

What Sullivan appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Court was the requirement that he pay the "non-refundable" "fees" for filing to contest the alleged violation.

While one might not like the fact that the fees to contest a violation are "non-refundable", that was part of the laws passed.

Since there are costs associated with having any hearing (the court employees as well as having the ticketing officer appear), the issue for those commenting on this thread needs to be rephrased. If a contesting person is not charged for these costs, then who pays the costs? Well, all of the taxpayers of the municipality will have to.

I don't have a good answer to the real issue of who pays. What do others think?

Innocence not the issue

I agree with you, someone has to pay the salary of the people involve with processing the paper work. This just like calling a repairman to your house to check your dishwasher if it is not working. He will charge you for a service call, whether he fix it or not. Same with the courts.

--
3790LMT; 2595LMT; 3590LMT, 60LMTHD

I have to disagree with this

I have to disagree with this one. In most states, EMT's are governed by medical control authority, if its an unknown accident then 911 pages them automatically. Being in a rural area, I know for a fact this has saved many a life in my community. And I'm sure there are some money grubbing communities, but ours are all volunteer and only bill the insurance company if they transport.

Britain's cure for economic slowdown - drive faster

--
Illiterate? Write for free help.

What planet do you live on ?

rthibodaux wrote:

I agree with you, someone has to pay the salary of the people involve with processing the paper work. This just like calling a repairman to your house to check your dishwasher if it is not working. He will charge you for a service call, whether he fix it or not. Same with the courts.

First the government accuses you falsely, you prove your innocence and then you have to pay because they F*&%ed up? When you took the IQ test did you owe them points ?

--
"Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam" “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

Your analogy is bogus. A

Your analogy is bogus. A customer calls a repairman to fix something. A person appeals a ticket because it shouldn't have bee issued in the first place. Why should a person be forced to pay for the mistake of someone else. An analgy might be if a customer was charged travel costs for a warranty repair.

Who should pay? Easy. The revenue produced by these kinds of tickets should be used to pay all expenses, including the cost of processing the paperwork for (those few?) people found not guilty.

Option 2. Make the company who supplied the defective equipment pay.

guilty

jgermann wrote:

If a contesting person is not charged for these costs, then who pays the costs? Well, all of the taxpayers of the municipality will have to.

I don't have a good answer to the real issue of who pays. What do others think?

How about the people that are guilty cover the costs? You don't think guilty people get away with not paying court costs, do you? So the few that prove their innocence, why not give them the benefit of the doubt, and not charge them anything?

not quite

rthibodaux wrote:

I agree with you, someone has to pay the salary of the people involve with processing the paper work. This just like calling a repairman to your house to check your dishwasher if it is not working. He will charge you for a service call, whether he fix it or not. Same with the courts.

You wouldn't call a repairman if your dishwasher was working just fine. That's more in line with an innocent person having to go through the courts, when they did nothing wrong. Why should they have to pay when it's "The Man's" fault they have to go through the system?

...

I recently had to pay a $500 fine for "failure to stop for pedestrians," but they were at least 5 lanes away (20+ ft.); however, the officer lied in court!

--
Michael (Nuvi 2639LMT)

terrable

YYYYYYYiKS

--
I may have my user name and password confused or switched! Can I get confimation of my user name????

"court costs" are fiction

Everyone at the court is a salaried employee, paid whether they work or not.

If the officer makes a false accusation, I say, dock his pay, fine the officer, have him pay restitution to the accused. If egregious, demote rank or lose his job, he has no business harassing or harming law-abiding citizens.

My dad was in law enforcement and I loved him. But, I haven't met five decent people in law enforcement in my lifetime.

The police department had corruption in the 1950's when dad was a highly honored police officer.

Law enforcement is so much worse, now.

The five decent people? They are afraid to speak up.

To report crack producers, I had to report the crime for months. Then, nothing was done. They moved to another location.

Why? The former Police Chief had the crack lab on his property and one "sworn officer" had his family members processing the crack.

In another instance, I complained for years. I heard it was the biggest crack lab in the state. Finally, I got a new police officer to turn it in to the Ruff McGruff crimestoppers program and he got a $1,000 reward. But he had to leave his job.

It is my impression, the worst criminals are not on-the-street.

I had "defensive driving" training and I am a very good driver.

Nevertheless, I think staying within the rules isn't enough.

Reasonable approach

twix wrote:

How about the people that are guilty cover the costs? You don't think guilty people get away with not paying court costs, do you? So the few that prove their innocence, why not give them the benefit of the doubt, and not charge them anything?

As with many well intentioned laws, this one probably made an assumption that all violations were correctly given even though it should be obvious that such would not be the case. The law could have been written to stipulate that a successful appeal would result in refund of the "fee". Then, assuming that the goal was to recoup the cost to the municipality of the appeal process, the fee might have been adjustable (from time to time) to do just that. Then, only the guilty would pay.

At least we are now discussing the "fee" rather than the "fine" (which did not have to be paid as suggested by the thread title).

who else?

No Jgermann, we are not talking about differences between "fine" and "fee". We are talking about situation when officials are trying to fine somebody for "law breaking" and when they can't prove that said person really broke the law, they simply change "fine" into "fee". So in the end even when you are innocent or can't be proven guilty you have to pay.

And we are not talking about "good intentions" of any law but about "real life" use of this law. So can you please stop trying to dissolve main topic in discussion about semantics and try to stay on topic?

.

twix wrote:
rthibodaux wrote:

I agree with you, someone has to pay the salary of the people involve with processing the paper work. This just like calling a repairman to your house to check your dishwasher if it is not working. He will charge you for a service call, whether he fix it or not. Same with the courts.

You wouldn't call a repairman if your dishwasher was working just fine. That's more in line with an innocent person having to go through the courts, when they did nothing wrong. Why should they have to pay when it's "The Man's" fault they have to go through the system?

Actually the analogy is backward . . .

If your dishwasher was still under warranty and messed up, you called a repairman and he came over and found a chicken bone wedged in the pump (or something not related to the machine itself) you would have to pay even though the machine is under warranty (your fault). If it was a bad relay or something actually wrong with the appliance then there would be NO charge because the manufacturer would pick up the costs.

I agree with the concept of charging a filing fee to those who wish to fight their tickets to prevent the courts from being inundated with frivolous complaints. But those fees should be refunded if the filer was successful with his challenge. That's how the small claims court system works now.

If the ticket was falsely issued, the recipient should not be saddled with ANY costs incurred to prove his innocence if he was found to be not guilty - in fact he probably should be compensated for the time he spent fighting the ticket - and that includes his out of pocket expenses as well as an hourly rate for his time.

That might provide some incentive to the state to ensure that no spurious tickets are issued - in fact perhaps tickets issued that were struck down should be counted against the quota of the officer who issued the ticket - and give HIM something to think about.

There are no consequences for the state in the system described by the OP - so why not just issue EVERY car a bunch of tickets for whatever reason and then sit back and let the ticket and ticket fighting revenue roll in? Sounds like a good way for cops to meet their (officially non-existent) quotas, too!!

--
Currently have: SP3, GPSMAP 276c, Nuvi 760T, Nuvi 3790LMT, Zumo 660T

what a system

If you plead guilty they lessen the fine and usually give you no points (depending on the charge plus court fees). However if you are found innocent in Ontario you do not pay any fees, you are off the hook (you just lose a lot of time and inconvenience). The best thing to do is fight it, and hope the cop does not show up, if he does, try to schedule another trial date. Make sure you ask for disclosure.

On topic

grzesja wrote:

No Jgermann, we are not talking about differences between "fine" and "fee". We are talking about situation when officials are trying to fine somebody for "law breaking" and when they can't prove that said person really broke the law, they simply change "fine" into "fee". So in the end even when you are innocent or can't be proven guilty you have to pay.

And we are not talking about "good intentions" of any law but about "real life" use of this law. So can you please stop trying to dissolve main topic in discussion about semantics and try to stay on topic?

The OP specifically titled the thread Not guilty, so what, pay the fine !!

@grzesja, surely you are not saying that Ralph C. Sullivan was required to pay a "fine" - if so, you must not have followed the link and then the court decision therein linked to.

Since no "fine" was paid, then the proper question should be whether the "fee" should have been assessed after Sullivan was found innocent.

Note that the "fee" was in the law before Sullivan was given a "fine". Sullivan paid the "fee" before the hearing and he was found responsible. Sullivan then appealed - paying a second "fee" - but was then found not responsible.

How did you conclude that they simply [changed] "fine" into "fee". ?

In a previous post, I said "As with many well intentioned laws, this one probably made an assumption that all violations were correctly given even though it should be obvious that such would not be the case." In my opinion, the law should have provided for refunds of fees if the person was exonerated (as bramfrank indicated was the case in small claims court)

What about imposing a fee in the first place? The MS Supreme Court seemed, in fact, to support the law providing for fees. For those who have not followed the links to the court decision, they said:


  • We conclude that there is a rational basis for requiring those cited for a noncriminal motor vehicle infraction alone to pay a filing fee and not requiring a filing fee for those contesting other types of civil violations under G.L. c. 40, § 21D. The process provided under G.L. c. 90C, § 3, to those who challenge a motor vehicle violation is significantly greater than that afforded to those who challenge a civil infraction under G.L. c. 40, § 21D. General Laws c. 90C, § 3, provides for the subpoena of witnesses for the hearing; G.L. c. 40, § 21D, does not. Those contesting motor vehicle violations under G.L. c. 90C, § 3, are entitled to a hearing before a judge or clerk-magistrate; those contesting a civil infraction under G.L. c. 40, § 21D, may be heard by an assistant clerk. Those found responsible by a clerk-magistrate for a motor vehicle violation under G.L. c. 90C, § 3, are allowed to obtain a de novo hearing before a judge; those contesting a civil infraction under G.L. c. 40, § 21D, have no entitlement to a de novo hearing on appeal. Where the Legislature provides greater process that imposes greater demands on the resources of the District Court, it is rational for the Legislature to impose filing fees, waivable where a litigant is indigent, to offset part of the additional cost of these judicial proceedings. See Gillespie v. Northampton, ante 148, 158-160 (2011). See also Ortwein v. Schwab, 410 U.S. 656, 660 (1973).

    The number of hearings on civil motor vehicle citations each year also dwarfs the number of hearings on public smoking and marijuana violations. [FN8] Where approximately 700,000 motorists cited for moving violations potentially may seek recourse in the District Court each year, [FN9] and where approximately 200,000 seek clerk-magistrate hearings, see note 8, supra, it is rational for the Legislature to deter frivolous filings by requiring a twenty-five dollar filing fee, and to deter frivolous appeals from a clerk-magistrate's finding of responsibility by requiring payment of an additional fifty dollar fee to schedule a hearing before a judge. See Gillespie v. Northampton, supra; Longval v. Superior Court Dep't of the Trial Court, 434 Mass. 718, 722-723 (2001).

Since I have been discussing what I found in the links, I considered myself on-topic. As you may note, others have weighed in on the issue of the fee.

God I wish I had

jgermann wrote:
grzesja wrote:

No Jgermann, we are not talking about differences between "fine" and "fee". We are talking about situation when officials are trying to fine somebody for "law breaking" and when they can't prove that said person really broke the law, they simply change "fine" into "fee". So in the end even when you are innocent or can't be proven guilty you have to pay.

And we are not talking about "good intentions" of any law but about "real life" use of this law. So can you please stop trying to dissolve main topic in discussion about semantics and try to stay on topic?

The OP specifically titled the thread Not guilty, so what, pay the fine !!

@grzesja, surely you are not saying that Ralph C. Sullivan was required to pay a "fine" - if so, you must not have followed the link and then the court decision therein linked to.

Since no "fine" was paid, then the proper question should be whether the "fee" should have been assessed after Sullivan was found innocent.

Note that the "fee" was in the law before Sullivan was given a "fine". Sullivan paid the "fee" before the hearing and he was found responsible. Sullivan then appealed - paying a second "fee" - but was then found not responsible.

How did you conclude that they simply [changed] "fine" into "fee". ?

In a previous post, I said "As with many well intentioned laws, this one probably made an assumption that all violations were correctly given even though it should be obvious that such would not be the case." In my opinion, the law should have provided for refunds of fees if the person was exonerated (as bramfrank indicated was the case in small claims court)

What about imposing a fee in the first place? The MS Supreme Court seemed, in fact, to support the law providing for fees. For those who have not followed the links to the court decision, they said:


  • We conclude that there is a rational basis for requiring those cited for a noncriminal motor vehicle infraction alone to pay a filing fee and not requiring a filing fee for those contesting other types of civil violations under G.L. c. 40, § 21D. The process provided under G.L. c. 90C, § 3, to those who challenge a motor vehicle violation is significantly greater than that afforded to those who challenge a civil infraction under G.L. c. 40, § 21D. General Laws c. 90C, § 3, provides for the subpoena of witnesses for the hearing; G.L. c. 40, § 21D, does not. Those contesting motor vehicle violations under G.L. c. 90C, § 3, are entitled to a hearing before a judge or clerk-magistrate; those contesting a civil infraction under G.L. c. 40, § 21D, may be heard by an assistant clerk. Those found responsible by a clerk-magistrate for a motor vehicle violation under G.L. c. 90C, § 3, are allowed to obtain a de novo hearing before a judge; those contesting a civil infraction under G.L. c. 40, § 21D, have no entitlement to a de novo hearing on appeal. Where the Legislature provides greater process that imposes greater demands on the resources of the District Court, it is rational for the Legislature to impose filing fees, waivable where a litigant is indigent, to offset part of the additional cost of these judicial proceedings. See Gillespie v. Northampton, ante 148, 158-160 (2011). See also Ortwein v. Schwab, 410 U.S. 656, 660 (1973).

    The number of hearings on civil motor vehicle citations each year also dwarfs the number of hearings on public smoking and marijuana violations. [FN8] Where approximately 700,000 motorists cited for moving violations potentially may seek recourse in the District Court each year, [FN9] and where approximately 200,000 seek clerk-magistrate hearings, see note 8, supra, it is rational for the Legislature to deter frivolous filings by requiring a twenty-five dollar filing fee, and to deter frivolous appeals from a clerk-magistrate's finding of responsibility by requiring payment of an additional fifty dollar fee to schedule a hearing before a judge. See Gillespie v. Northampton, supra; Longval v. Superior Court Dep't of the Trial Court, 434 Mass. 718, 722-723 (2001).

Since I have been discussing what I found in the links, I considered myself on-topic. As you may note, others have weighed in on the issue of the fee.

God I wish I had the time that jgermann has on his hands to pursue something useful and educational.

--
"Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam" “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

What

So the offices can issue all the tickets from home. what if they issue a ticket to someone who died years ago?

The one issuing the ticket??

jgermann wrote:

I don't have a good answer to the real issue of who pays. What do others think?

Maybe the one issuing the 'false' ticket should pay the fees. It may stop one from giving you a ticket just because he had a h--don for you; and it may just force the law to make sure the ticket was going to stick before issuing it!

RT

--
"Internet: As Yogi Berra would say, "Don't believe 90% of what you read, and verify the other half."

We do not know enough

retiredtechnician wrote:
jgermann wrote:

I don't have a good answer to the real issue of who pays. What do others think?

Maybe the one issuing the 'false' ticket should pay the fees. It may stop one from giving you a ticket just because he had a h--don for you; and it may just force the law to make sure the ticket was going to stick before issuing it!

RT

We do not know enough about this case to really determine why Ralph C. Sullivan (who is, by the way, an attorney) was found "not responsible" on appeal after he was found "responsible" at first. He was cited for failure to stay within a marked lane and issued a $100 ticket. We might assume it was issued by an officer but we really do not know that. It is the court documents that give the details and say that he was found "not responsible" on appeal. We do not know if it was because of a technicality or extenuating circumstances or whether he was really falsely accused.

The article from The Truth About Cars never discusses what happens. It only says:

"Motorists issued a traffic ticket in Massachusetts will have to pay money to the state whether or not they committed the alleged crime. According to a state supreme court ruling handed down yesterday, fees are to be imposed even on those found completely innocent. The high court saw no injustice in collecting $70 from Ralph C. Sullivan after he successfully fought a $100 ticket for failure to stay within a marked lane."

I can not agree that an officer should have to pay a fee for issuing a ticket that did not stick. Now, if some officer is giving "false" tickets (as your post says), I would consider that an entirely different matter. Such an officer should be dismissed.

I didn't say .....

jgermann wrote:

I can not agree that an officer should have to pay a fee for issuing a ticket that did not stick. Now, if some officer is giving "false" tickets (as your post says), I would consider that an entirely different matter. Such an officer should be dismissed.

I didn't say 'Officer', I said 'one'. This refers to anyone with the authority to issue tickets, including employees of 'traffic camera companies', etc.

If, as you said, "I can not agree that an officer should have to pay a fee for issuing a ticket that did not stick'; then neither should the poor slob who got nailed for something he didn't do?

RT

--
"Internet: As Yogi Berra would say, "Don't believe 90% of what you read, and verify the other half."

Was not responding directly to your "One"

retiredtechnician wrote:

I didn't say 'Officer', I said 'one'. This refers to anyone with the authority to issue tickets, including employees of 'traffic camera companies', etc.

If, as you said, "I can not agree that an officer should have to pay a fee for issuing a ticket that did not stick'; then neither should the poor slob who got nailed for something he didn't do?

RT

@RT, I was not responding directly to your "one". I was indirectly using your post to amplify for readers of the thread that no proof of Ralph Sullivan's "innocence" was given (although he might well have been). It might make a difference in people's thinking if he was actually guilty of the infraction but was held "not responsible" on a technicality.

I also said in my post that "We might assume [the ticket] was issued by an officer but we really do not know that." Having said officer at first, I used "officer" later.

I wonder if anyone has taken your concept of "Maybe the one issuing the 'false' ticket should pay the fees" and changed the circumstance to a felony such that - in the event the the arrested person was found "not guilty" - the arresting authority would have to serve whatever sentence would have been given if the arrested person had be found guilty. I, of course, use "not guilty" rather than "innocent" to include the possibility of technicalities and "by reason of insanity".

My hard earned money is not going to you

Wow, this is not right. Is this communism?

Unbelievable!

Unbelievable!

Yes!!

jgermann wrote:

I wonder if anyone has taken your concept of "Maybe the one issuing the 'false' ticket should pay the fees" and changed the circumstance to a felony such that - in the event the the arrested person was found "not guilty" - the arresting authority would have to serve whatever sentence would have been given if the arrested person had be found guilty. I, of course, use "not guilty" rather than "innocent" to include the possibility of technicalities and "by reason of insanity".

I've always been of the belief that anyone who falsely accuses another of rape should serve the same sentence the accused would have served had he/she been thrown in the slammer due to that accusation. The same theory could apply here!

RT

--
"Internet: As Yogi Berra would say, "Don't believe 90% of what you read, and verify the other half."

Nope.

lazyhusband wrote:

Wow, this is not right. Is this communism?

Actually I'd say it's more an example of capitalism. Use any excuse to grab the money, and write the laws to give you the result you want.

Not Guilty

What's next?

--
Alan-Garmin c340
Page 1>>