Furious over citation

Anonymous Poster · Mar 28, 2003

BigDave: Playing dumb IS being clever! Sometimes that works without knowing what's going on. But knowing what's going on then playing dumb is better. JEH

Richard · Mar 28, 2003

Just as a curious conversation, I called the courthouse and asked about a change of venue....

(Boy was this lady Ms personality too /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif )

I pointed out to her I lived 60 miles away, like to have court nearer to my home over a silly $3.50 light bulb. That I preferred to NOT take 1/2 day off work, drive 60 miles then drive back over a burnt bulb.

She said my choice was to either pay the ticket now, or show up in court.

I said, if I talked to a judge, could THEY authrize a change in venue... her answer... "The judge does not hold court over the telephone"

/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Me thinks I was not talking to the brightest bulb in the pack.

I clarified to her I didn't expect him to hold court over the phone, but could he/she AUTHORIZE a change of venue. She said she did not know, that they wont' even TALK to me over the phone, I'd have to drive there to ask them personally.

Hmm..I have to drive 60 miles, to ask if I can change the venue so that I do not have to drive 60 miles, right?

"Right"

Sigh...

gerard · Mar 28, 2003

Guess I can't chuckle over any of these posts. All I see is some people who admitted they were in violation, got caught (probably the one time they got caught in 10), then rather than just accept it and pay the penalty, they try and manipulate a system that functions poorly at best. And we wonder why things cost as much as they do? If you're innocent argue the facts, if you're guilty use the system????? How about admit your guilt and accept responsiblity, take your lumps and move on?? (Sorry - too radical a thought /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif)

cowboydoc · Mar 28, 2003

Well said Gerard. If we all had your integrity the world would certainly be a better place. I get sick and tired of people in this country refusing to accept responsibility for their actions. Very few people in this country get harrassed or have brushes with the law that didn't bring it on themselves.

Bird · Mar 28, 2003

/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gifRichard, I didn't say anything when I read that post about the "change of venue" because I know laws may be different in different states, but I thought it was hilarious and I'm not at all surprised at the answer you got. I've never heard of anyone getting a change of venue without appearing in court in person (with an attorney usually) to request it; a written motion has to be filed. There are then some specific requirements to get that motion approved, and the distance you have to drive ain't one of'em. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif Just offhand, the only thing I can think of that will get you a change of venue here is if you can convince the judge that you couldn't get a fair trial in that locale. Now that usually means either that the "crime" was so widely publicized in the news media that the judge agrees that they cannot find enough impartial jurors to have the trial there, or that the defendant is so well known in the community (usually politicians) that they cannot find enough impartial jurors. The written motion will have to include evidence to support this belief. I don't think you qualify in spite of the incident being widely publicized on this forum. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

( Me thinks I was not talking to the brightest bulb in the pack )

I can practically guarantee that she thought the same thing. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

BigDave · Mar 28, 2003

I plead guilty and was ready to pay my fine, it was the system that didn't let me do it. If I went to a jury trial, the prosecuter's office would needed to prepare a case, I would have needed to hire a lawyer, 12 good people would have given up a day or two of their lives listen to me say I'm guilty, can I now please pay the fine....your honor. /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

5030 · Mar 29, 2003

ONLY IN AMERICA!!!

I'm sure in Iraq, you'd be shot so you's not have to worry about the money.

Daryl
Forage Services, L.P.

Anonymous Poster · Apr 1, 2003

cowboydoc et al: Although my memory is failing me in my old age and approaching senility, I seem to recall this thread started because someone felt they were being ripped off, were mad about it and expressed the desire to "fight it". And here you are bringing up the issue of responsibility! Responsibility is awareness and acceptance of consequences flowing from preexisting conditions, and subsequent consequences, and, the implications steming from that awareness. "Law", on the other hand is proscriptive. More simply, responsibility is cognitive (and the implications therefrom) while law is descriptive. There are two broad categories of law. The first is what is usually referred to as natural law-the essence of which is that you are "punished" for violating it by the nature of reality itself even if you are not aware of it. The second type of law is man-made, man-created and this includes everything from tail-light violations to religous "law". Basically, real vs make-believe. Now, it is perfectly true that some make-believe laws are consistent with natural law. This can be helpful to guide people who are unable to grasp natural law. This is all to the good. But when those make-believe laws are not consistent with natural law there is no duty to obey them, except, of course, to consider consequences for their violation. Again, cowboydoc, natural law enforces itself, make-believe law requires human intervention.

Let me give a simple example. If you asked most people whether theft was wrong they mostly would say yes. If you then asked them, why?, you would get all kinds of answers ranging from, it's against the law (legislated), some god says its wrong, you will/might be punished, etc. All these answers relate to make-believe. If you asked me (and a very few others) I would say I live in a system based on the social division of labor and stealing reduces the efficacy of that system, reduces the quality and trust humans can place in each other, etc., and, therefore, since that the over-all value of the social division of labor is of such a high value (or should be) for all of us, stealing is wrong. Put simple, stealing is impractical in the over-all context of human life even if one could "get away" with it in the short term. You may decide for yourself which motivation is the more efficacious. Would you prefer someone who does not steal because they may get caught, or, because they understand that stealing is harmful to the social system based on the division of labor in which they live? Based on fear, or respect for reality? Or, consider speeding violations. There are TWO laws here. One based on the laws of physics, condition of the road and your vehicle, habituated brain action (experience), reaction time, obstructions (including pedestrians) and so forth. The other is make-believe and based on everything from the desire to "trap" speeders in order to steal from them through other, personal, motivations of the legislators. If you violate the natural speed limits reality will punish you through a crash, blown engine, damaging others, etc. If you violate the make-believe speed limit you may OR MAY NOT have consequences. Of course, it is best (safest) to operate well below the natural law speed limit.

bird, et al: I obviously don't know about all venues, but usually the clerk of the court has change of venue forms which you simply fill out. As others have said, inconvenient location is NOT a valid reason.

With all due respective, I submit that those who say obey the "law" no matter what, have, in fact, abdicated responsibility, not assumed it. The greatest virtue and strength of human beings is the ability to think-uncritical acceptance of what "others" say is not, in my judgment, the "responsible" way.

Take care all - if you recall my suggestion, the opening and closing liines were "pay the $2". JEH

MossRoad · Apr 1, 2003

AHHH!! That's the same look my fahter-in-law gave me when I picked up his daughter for the first time! /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

cowboydoc · Apr 1, 2003

Exactly what did you say in your post that would excuse a person for breaking the law and then trying to use the system to try and get out of it? Alot of philosophy on law, etc. but what you said has nothing to do with being moral and being responsible. It doesn't matter which "law" you want to subscribe to. Be a man, take your lumps for your actions, and move on. If it's a case of you're innocent then fight but if not don't waste my tax dollars and everyone's time being a jerk about something because you got caught. We all know the laws. No matter how you want to look at it laws are essential for a society to survive. In this country we have ways to change laws if we don't like them. Rather than spend time trying to beat the system, spend your time and change the system if you don't think it's fair. That is TRULY assuming responsibility and being a responsible citizen.

Anonymous Poster · Apr 2, 2003

cowboydoc: Since you are obviously an intelligent, "responsible" person, and since you obviously didn't get the point I was making, the fault must lie with the way I expressed it.

In 1932 a citizen walking down the street with a gold bar in their pocket was a perfectly legal citizen while a person with a flask of whiskey in their pocket was a "criminal" subject to being sent of to jail. One year later their situations were totally reversed and the guy with the gold bar became a criminal. Can any rational person claim that there was any intrinsic "right" or "wrong" to these type of make-believe crimes? Laws are enforced by the use of violence perpetrated by the state against the individual-they (laws) have consequences. Enforcement is often arbitrary for the financial gain of the enforcers. I recall having lunch with my attorney some while back and he was telling me about a case he was handling where a lady had her grandson living with her and the grandson had placed some "illegal" substance in a desk in her home where she had her savings account book (with her life savings in it!!!). The police "confiscated" (stole!) her life savings over something she had no knowledge of. My lawyer friend was trying to get it back for her. Cowboydoc, you have no idea of what is going on in this country. From your bio you have a large operation and lots of property. What if they passed some new "environmental" law which had the effect of wiping out your operation? It happens. Without property rights there can be no freedom. And property rights are being destroyed all around you-if you have not been affected by it YET, good for you. How? By make-believe laws, by guilt, by "good" people who simply want to "obey the law" and live their lives.

You mentioned "changing" the laws. Perhaps you have the power to do that, I do not. In any event, the problem is not with the laws, but rather the thinking processes that cause the laws-laws are an effect, not a cause. And, I do have some limited power to affect that. I have ancestors who fought in the Revolutionary War. It is too late to "fight" now because the corruption has spread too far. There is a cliche something to the effect that "when they came for someone in the next block I didn't worry because I didn't know them and so didn't help them, when they came for my nieghbor I didn't help because I didn't want to get involved, and, when they came for me there was no one to help."

JEH

Wingnut · Apr 2, 2003

sticking my nose in for the sake of sticking my nose in .... I just had to rspond to one comment, Richard (not poiling on you ...!)
 Illegal land confiscation has been going on since the world began 
That's an excellant example of the laws that you want to obey and think you can change: Eniment Domain. Legally , the government, at any level, can decide to take you land AND decide what it's worth. A perfect example of laws passed purely to benefit a select few at the expense of the rest of society.
The books are full of arbitrarily passed laws that Joe Citizen has no say over. We obey them out of fear of the consequences ... not out of a love for law.

pete

MikePA · Apr 2, 2003

A response to no one in particular... /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

From the time God told Adam and Eve they could eat from any tree in the garden except from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, human beings have had three options when presented with a law;

1. Obey it.
2. Disobey it.
3. Try and change it.

If we choose Option 2, then we have to accept the consequences.

If we choose Option 3, and we get enough people who agree with us, then the law gets changed via the democratic process. It hasn't been that long ago that segregation was legal. Many people endured the consequences, some to the point of death, of disobeying these laws.

Also since the garden of Eden, human beings have tried to avoid the consequences of choosing Option 2 by rationalizing their actions.

Wingnut · Apr 3, 2003

Interesting ... but I see no correlation whatsoever between God's law (or nature's law if you're an atheistic, agnostic or "other) ... and law's enacted by us imperfect humans. And especiaqlly imperfect laws applied imperfectly by biased humans.
And just to set the record straight, I'm on the "pay the ticket" side ... because it'll cost less in the long run ... and lead to a lot fewer ulcers (i.e. it'll be over quicker)

pete

MikePA · Apr 3, 2003

The correlation, as I see it /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif , is our reaction to laws, regardless of where they originate.

Bird · Apr 4, 2003

( You get it. Cowboydoc either doesn't, or, he does and he's afraid of the implications. )

In other words, those who don't agree 100% with your "philosophy" just don't get it, huh? /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif I realize you'd never consider the rest of us mere mortals to be on your intellectual plane, but we might understand more than you realize. /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

gerard · Apr 4, 2003

I dissagree with a whole bunch of laws, most related to taxes but that doesn't mean I'm not going to pay them. I think we have way too many laws and we only seem to get more as time goes on. Don't see many get repealed. But we weren't talking hypotheticals OR a silly law that probably shouldn't be on the books to start with. We were talking about a light out. He didn't say the light wasn't out. He just disagreed with the fine and some here seemed to encourage him to manipulate the system to the max to get out of the ticket. Well you can do that but it only adds to the cost of an already inefficient system. If you feel that strongly about a law I'd encourage you to work within the system to change the law or fine structure. Thats democracy in action, not adding to the problem for personal gain. Democracy, while it may be the best form of government to live under, is also the most inefficient. Checks and balances are great. It also means everything is a compromise and very little actually gets done. (The most efficient form of government is a dictatorship. The trick is getting the RIGHT dictator. Since no ones been able to do that yet I guess I'll stick with our system. ) /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

JohnMiller3 · Apr 4, 2003

A smile uses less muscles... than a frown...

… Interesting how a thread that started… can evolve into a discussion of the broad sweep of history, law, etc ….

I wholeheartedly agree grimreaper…

Perhaps, being around “Death” all the time in your occupation has taken its toll…

You really should “lighten up” a bit… being “negative” most of the time weighs heavy on one’s soul…

Being “positive” in life is much better medicine… /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif