I got a speeding ticket and apparently I have a to appear in court on Thursday. I hope to get out of it. But if not I have a question I want to ask the judge.

 

So the Supreme Court ruled for a plaintiff to have standing in a civil court, they must allege personal injury or damages. The officer that pulled me over isn't alleging either of those. Thus he has no standing according to the Constitution and the Supreme Court ruling. Without standing the judge has no jurisdiction.

 

I'll probably get arrested for contempt of court if I have the balls to say that.

I don't understand what some of those words mean, but good luck. :thumbsup:

 

How fast were you going? :charming:

 

:P

Nick + speeding ticket = Hot.

lol speeding is a turn-on?

 

I was only going 14 over. I slowed down because I know more cops are out to get people because of state budget deficits.

hahaha xD yeah, they seem to be giving out even more tickets for stupid reasons lately :P

lol speeding is a turn-on?

 

Hahaha

 

I wish you all the best in dealing with this situation.

I was once turned on by a video of Chris Martin driving recklessly. Just sayin.

I haven't been pulled over before, thus haven't had to to go to court so I wouldn't know what to do to get out of having to pay for the ticket.

 

But I do remember I think one of my relatives saying that they got out of one by asking the judge that the officer appear in court to discuss the speeding, and that they got out of it because the judge or judicial system didn't want to be bothered to reschedule another court date just for the cop to show up.

 

I don't know if that would work or help, but good luck!

A speeding ticket is technically an arrest, which is why a bond must generally be posted (drivers license, money, or I-bond). When youre summoned to court for a moving violation, it's a division of criminal court, not civil. Civil court is like what you see on Judge Judy.

 

Your only defense would be to prove you were not speeding, else you're best to request a traffic safety school (if offered) or supervision. School would automatically give your supervision.

 

Trust me, Ive been in law enforcement for nearly ten years.

Also, stick to no more than 10 over. Some will still grab you for less, but in most places, 10 is safe.

I thought going to court was an option? If you acknowledge you were speeding, just pay the fine and that's it. If you want to fight the ticket, you can go to court. At least that's the way it is in Michigan. Or, that's what happened when I got pulled over for going 51 in a 35, anyway. :tongue:

 

It wasn't fair though, because it was one lane and the crusty old lady in front of me was barely going 20 so when we were stopped at the light I got on the right and then blazed past her in my (at the time) dinky little Prizm to get past her and turns out there was a cop just camping there and so he pulled me over and it was 4:59pm so he was just trying to get a ticket in before heading home for the day. Mmmmph.

 

^ Nice run-on sentence there, huh?

 

Really though Nick, I didn't think it was a requirement to go to court unless your intent is to fight the ticket?

Also, stick to no more than 10 over. Some will still grab you for less, but in most places, 10 is safe.

 

Until you hit someone when your going 40 in a 30.

 

You got caught speeding, now pay the fine.

Yeah why do you have to go to court for it? Did you say you weren't speeding?

Dont you usually have to pay the fine and be okay?

In the UK, if you know you were caught speeding and you don't have mega bucks to hire out a lawyer to rip stuff to pieces its easier & cheaper to pay the 60 quid.

a date :charming:

This is retarded, court date for a speeding ticket? Nick you musta done something you're not telling us.

this makes me want to start a "have you been pulled over before and if so describe it" thread

I got caught doing 50 in a 30 zone and all I got was a talking to.

 

If you have a clean record and this is your first ticket then I feel sorry for you cause that's one hell of a kick in the balls. Surely they're going a little overboard for a minor crime.

In the UK unless they get you with a speed gun reading or have a calibrated camera in the car they haven't got evidence to prosecute you so they try and get you to admit you were speeding, which if you don't they can't do very much, I got stopped quite a while ago for going easily 100-110 on an A road and as it was a patrol car not a traffic one they didn't have a camera, I wasn't stupid enough to incriminate myself and I didn't get any points.

A speeding ticket is technically an arrest, which is why a bond must generally be posted (drivers license, money, or I-bond). When youre summoned to court for a moving violation, it's a division of criminal court, not civil. Civil court is like what you see on Judge Judy.

 

Your only defense would be to prove you were not speeding, else you're best to request a traffic safety school (if offered) or supervision. School would automatically give your supervision.

 

Trust me, Ive been in law enforcement for nearly ten years.

 

I know in my state it's done in Civil court, maybe it's different in SC. But in civil court for the judge to have subject matter jurisdiction, the plaintiff must have standing. Without standing the judge has no legal power to rule over the case. So trying a criminal matter in civil court is unconstitutional and that has been ruled by the Supreme court. If they held the trial in criminal court it would be perfectly legal.

 

At least in my state they're trying criminal law in civil court. And technically the judge does not have subject matter jurisdiction to rule over that type of case in civil court. In civil court the judge only has the power to rule over cases with alleged personal injury or damages, that's it(according to the constitution and supreme court ruling)

So, that means the court cannot report to your state's Secretary of State, and no points can be assigned to a driving abstract should a conviction be ruled? or really, no conviction can ever take place, only a civil monetary judgement? Does the state's suit amount change pending the actual speed over assigned MPH? I know municipalities "sue" for red light camera violations, but never heard of one not holding municipal traffic court with direct citations issued to motorists in violation if the state's vehicle code. Do they do the same with registration and equipment failures? This is fascinating! My state is getting tougher and tougher in penalizing perpetual offenders, and other states can't get off their asses to prosecute even those that deserve it. I'm not for throwing the axe at everyone, but a lot of people deserve it. It really us pathetic to think some of these folks can do whatever they'd like, whenever they'd like, as often as they'd like, and never suffer a suspension or revocation of their priviledges. Wow.

If you're going by the law the Supreme court ruled on because of the Constitution then it is illegal to try criminal law in civil court because lack of standing.(Without subject matter jurisdiction a judge cannot make a ruling and without standing the judge has no subject matter jurisdiction.) That's what the constitution says an the supreme court ruled in many other cases. If it was tried in criminal court then it would be perfectly legal.

 

 

But when did the government actually follow it's own laws or actually listen to the Constitution? Laws are bullshit in the eyes of government when it benefits them.

 

I'm just going by supreme court ruling based upon the Constitution. Obviously when it gets in the way of money for the government they'll throw out the rule of law and ignore it.

 

The government breaks it's laws all the time...look at the warrant-less wiretaps and copious amounts of other violations by the government.

I say if you feel so strongly about it then just go for it and bitch at them about it. I can see where you're coming from as it's just a speeding ticket for Christ's sake.