Search found 556 matches

"SPEEDING KM/HR IN A KM/HR ZONE" I would have a hard time thinking that this item on the ticket can be considered complete and regular on its face when the numbers are so obviously missing.

If it just said "SPEEDING" then maybe, but how is someone to know if the set fine is correct without the actual number. If the set fine being wrong is fatal ...

No one can tell you how to fight a ticket without knowing what evidence is against you in the disclosure. Until you get it do not bother trying to formulate a defense or ask anyone their opinion you'll be wasting you will be wasting your time.

I would reiterate what Stanton said in that at this point you would be well served if you searched the ...

If you approached a red light, you did not stop COMPLETELY, and there was no green arrow indicating that you should turn left/right then you ran a red light. This makes 144.18 is the correct charge. 144.19 is the exemption allowing you to make a turn at a red light IF you have come to a FULL stop (slowing down doesn't cut it). Going to court with ...

First you check for pedestrians if clear pass the crosswalk then before merging check for cars, if clear merge if not stop and wait. You would normally stop before the curb line if you had to wait for cars to pass. Stopping too far back may unsafe as you will not be able to see oncoming traffic.

When you approach the sign you have already turned and are no longer facing a red light so a full stop is not required unless you have to yield. In your diagram specifically you only have to yield if necessary (if there are pedestrians crossing you would yield to them and you would then yield to oncoming traffic before you merge).

They all said 39 over without seeing your disclosure?

Yes you need an interlock device. Whatever conditions on your license are the same wherever you take it.

11b may be successful. The tricky part is going to be who to attribute the delay. That would involve pulling transcripts and being prepared to argue that you could not have proceeded to trial without the officer going over the notes in that most people could not decipher what they contain. It could go either way so to put the odds in your favor I ...

11b may be successful. The tricky part is going to be who to attribute the delay. That would involve pulling transcripts and being prepared to argue that you could not have proceeded to trial without the officer going over the notes in that most people could not decipher what they contain. It could go either way so to put the odds in your favor I ...

When they told you to call them you should use something called telephone. A telephone is a device that enables one user to input a series of numbers from 0 to 9 by pressing numbered buttons. The number should be printed somewhere on back of the ticket you received. Once you find a phone and figure out how to place the call I would reference the ...

It isn't ethical to allow someone to plead guilty to something you know they didn't do. A lesser charge is based on the same series of events. For example fail to stop goes down to improper stop.

Nanny state? What a nanny state?

Somewhere in that rant is there a question?

All I can tell you is that there is almost no defense to speeding if you were indeed speeding even 1 kph over the limit.

If you are going to fight it and win you need either a technicality or have to create reasonable doubt at trial. Blinding sun or following the flow of traffic is not going to help ...

I believe the evil plan will work in this case. Anything currently before the courts cannot count against you until you are convicted so if you were to pass a full G in the mean time you will have a full G with all of the privileges (up to 15 demerit points) upon your conviction. But don't get too cocky, because with that kind of record I would ...

Not going to court means you are deemed not to dispute the charge and if the ticket has no errors you will be convicted.

Once you are granted appeal successfully the conviction is erased.

Yes but not for fatal errors.

I would have charged both of you with careless for driving in a snowstorm. Did you take pictures or are there any witnesses? If the lane markings are obscured and you told the officer that you turned for whatever reason into the oncoming path of another car then I'd say you are at fault.
If you challenge the ticket you will be offered a reduced ...

Looks like a fatal error to me so much for computers...

Here's a pretty good blurb about it:

http://www.ticketcombat.com/step5/quash.php

It will be easiest for you to just ignore the ticket though you run a small risk of the JP missing the error and you having to appeal.

You got it, simple do nothing (ignore the ticket) and a justice of the peace will quash the ticket after 15 days. If you go to court for trial they will amend the ticket so that it is correct so you do not want to do that. If the justice doesnt notice the error on the ticket you can appeal.

Just be sure that you indeed have a fatal error. I would ...

You can argue whatever you want but I doubt you will be successful. You need you get your disclosure and see what the officer's notes say about the witness statements. I'm going to guess they are saying you blew into that intersection without stopping and were hit by the other car who just started to proceed from the 4 way stop (they might even say ...

If the ticket does not state the speed you were travelling at and the limit of the posted zone they you would be well advised to follow Stanton's advice and go the forcing a fatal error route. Forget about everything else.

Admitting you lied to a police officer is a more serious offence than the careless driving offence charge itself. By going that route you put yourselves in over your heads and you aught to hire competent representation for your daughter because your actions thus far have actually made matters worse for the both of you. If money is a problem now ...

How do you know that the ambulance driver made a left from the right lane if you couldn't see or hear him until the accident was inevitable? Do you have any independent witnesses (persons not in your car) to support that there were no sirens, flashing lights, and your view was completely obstructed? What did the ambulance driver say?

Congratulations on not taking opiates anymore (it's rare someone beats the habit they usually just switch to methadone for life on the taxpayer dime). With your history most doctors are likely to consider any evidence of drug use as abuse. It's not necessarily about what you take, it's if you take anything at all that effects your sobriety. Do ...

This is incomplete disclosure, normally solid testimony from the officer should be enough to convict you, but if there was a video you have a right to see it and they are obligated store it properly so that will happen. You should ask for the case to be stayed before the trial begins (it is not a slam dunk, there is a process so do your homework ...

No paperwork required. Anything said in court is on record. There is nothing to be shocked about, the system worked the way it was supposed to because despite your lack of knowledge of the system you ended up getting out of a ticket because the paperwork was off. If they could have taken you to trial or got you to plead guilty they certainly would ...

Sounds like the prosecutor noticed a fatal error and withdrew the charge. You were told you were free to go an the matter was resolved? Correct?

Look up fatal errors.

Request trial, get disclosure. If the turn is legal is after 9am and your ticket says 8:58 you would be disputing only the time that it is was after 9am that you turned and since it was after 9 it was perfectly legal.

I think you could beat this at trial if you present strong unwavering testimony that you saw the sign, checked your clock to make ...

Likely a fatal error on the ticket or a ticket that was filed too late. We're not mind readers could you elaborate on the situation and under what circumstances you met the prosecutor?

If you believe that you had better fund some precidents to back you up your reading if the legislation.