justice FAIL
Thread started by
tortuga_veloce at 10.20.09 - 1:48 pm
so i went to court today on a 21202 citation. i was riding two abreast on centinela southbound just south of venice (substandard width lane) and approaching a place where a right turn was authorized. as many of you know, this means you can take the lane. i'll spare you the details, but the cop argued that when the law says "right turn is authorized," and the judge completely threw out the idea of the door zone. i brought a DVD to demonstrate the door zone, but the judge didnt allow me to show it.
im thinking of appealing, but im not sure what the legal rationale would be. help?
reply
this was at 11:30 at night, btw and he was the only car on the road. he lied about that, of course.
tortuga_veloce10.20.09 - 1:50 pm
reply
For how much?
sexy responding to a
comment by la duderina
10.20.09 - 1:54 pm
reply
i'll never ride in the door zone again. i don't care how many tickets i get.
buckchin responding to a
comment by tortuga_veloce
10.20.09 - 1:55 pm
reply
*shrugs*
If he's like Larry H Parker, he works on contingency. He'll fight for you!
la duderina responding to a
comment by sexy
10.20.09 - 1:59 pm
reply
how about saying some stats about how many people die/seriously injured from getting doored and stating the cvc about how you can ride as far left as you feel safe
66610.20.09 - 1:59 pm
reply
so what kind of contingency is he going to get on getting your traffic violation dismissed?
sexy responding to a
comment by la duderina
10.20.09 - 1:59 pm
reply
how the hell should I know?dang.
Probably MORE than what the traffic ticket costs, if THAT is what you are getting at.
but THAT is the BEAUTY of being a lawyer, my friend.
la duderina10.20.09 - 2:02 pm
reply
for the lawyer or the person who has been wronged?
ask yourself that question when you get that bar card.
Are you doing this for money or justice?
you'll probably say both.
sexy responding to a
comment by la duderina
10.20.09 - 2:11 pm
reply
that's the problem in this country. The only ones who get justice are the ones with the most money....so it has gotta be for both.
When you are 6 figures in debt, some things MUST be done simply for money.
la duderina responding to a
comment by sexy
10.20.09 - 2:18 pm
reply
When i entertained law school, I sat with a professor on campus for lunch... and we were just chatting bout stuff...
anyhow he said... "you know my son went to law school because he wanted to fight for the elss fortunate: two main problems
1. Less fortunate dont have any $$$$
2. Most of the cases, the person was actually guilty
(enter first depression)
So he switched to family law to help women, who he mistakenly understood to be the victims in divorce..blah, blah, blah
1. Realized women are really fucked up too (you know guys are cool sometimes).
2. Poor women dont have $$$$$
(enter more depression)
Finally...
Son dabbles in writing.
Being a lawyer basically is a huge commitment career wise. And it does not necessarily pay off. Its a lot of work to earn 60-70K a year.. (sure you can make more). Social Justice is a bitch...
I went to a focus group once for potential law students. I was the only person our of 20 or so in the group that said they wanted to attend law school because they cared about justice.
Everyone else (no lie):
Prestige
$$$$$$
md2 responding to a
comment by la duderina
10.20.09 - 2:30 pm
reply
You know what, maybe the person who has been wronged should think of that when they go to fight something.
Why must the lawyer be the martyr? It may sound selfish, but it is a LOT OF FREAKIN BULLSHIT what people have to go through in law school. It is NO JOKE. and I can see why lawyers charge so much for their knowledge...because they worked fucken hard to get it, paid a shit ton for it, and it is valuable to them. It is their livelihood.
So considering the fact that the lawyer spent all this money to go to school, worked their ASS OFF to educate themselves, why all of the sudden are the obliged to give out their services for free?
Maybe the person fighting their ticket should think if they want legal advice, "well should I pay the money and get justice, maybe even set precedent and change a law, or be selfish and keep my money and not do anything about it."
So now it becomes "am I going to expect to not have to pay for justice or for money?"
Maybe if our education system wasn't so fucked that law school/med school/whatever school is so prohibitively expensive it would be different...but I'm sorry some things will just have to cost you money if you want it to get fixed.
I honestly can't believe all of this just spewed out of my mouth. I feel dirty. but its true.
I bet if it cost you upwards of $200,000 to go to beauty school you wouldn't feel like giving out haircuts for free, either, unless it was for a REALLY good cause...like most lawyers give out pro bono services for REALLY good causes, not some random person's stupid traffic ticket.
la duderina responding to a
comment by sexy
10.20.09 - 2:34 pm
reply
So now it becomes "am I going to expect to not have to pay for justice or for money?"
that makes no sense. ignore that.
la duderina10.20.09 - 2:36 pm
reply
but Duderina...
Lawyers are paid way too much for what they do most of the time.... it is robbery in a sense.
If i take youre route... wouldnt this be a nice argument for all the MBA bankers and their huge bonuses and such...
Something just doesnt add up
Where is the justification?
Labor?
compare labor of blue collar workers versus lawyer
labor wise = who works harder? Definitions, definitions
You know the story about paying the plumber for knowing where to hit the pipe? Yeah, all he does is hit the pipe, but charges $$$... because, you know, YOU didnt know where to hit the pipe (enter all nasty jokes--love it)
md2 responding to a
comment by la duderina
10.20.09 - 2:39 pm
reply
All laws are public information, all you really need is time to study it.
braydon responding to a
comment by la duderina
10.20.09 - 2:41 pm
reply
+1 about our education system being fucked up. Seriously, the average traditionally educated Jewish 8 year old could understand and explain the basic precepts and interpretations of any given law. Where'd that system go? If kids got a proper education, maybe they wouldn't need to hire a lawyer just to understand a simple traffic ticket. And maybe cops would actually have to know the laws, instead of bullshitting tickets people pay without questioning a majority of the time.
danya responding to a
comment by la duderina
10.20.09 - 2:42 pm
reply
It's not like laws are a secret and laywers are the only ones with the information.
braydon10.20.09 - 2:42 pm
reply
cops are just muscle for the government mafia and right now they're trying to collect for "keeping us protected"
fight the good fight. not all judges are lame
sklank10.20.09 - 2:43 pm
reply
it's not just knowing the rules. anyone can do that. you have to be able to apply them and use them in real life situations. that is a skill that is learned over time that some lawyers never even get.
la duderina responding to a
comment by braydon
10.20.09 - 2:46 pm
reply
of course... thats why you can represent yourself...
Its like religion though... sure study the text, but are you sure you're interpreting it correctly? Are sure others agree with your interpretation?
Laws are vague. You have to be very detail orientated to do good in law. Precision and lucidity matters to do it right.
The problem with Law in a broad sense, is that the goal in laws should be justice for all (in a vague way)... but laws tend to serve an alternate purpose.
md2 responding to a
comment by braydon
10.20.09 - 2:47 pm
reply
honestly, a couple years ago I would have agreed with you all, but now that I am on the other side of the table...there's a lot going on over here that you don't see....
la duderina10.20.09 - 2:49 pm
reply
I'm really happy for your case, and I'm gona let you finish, but there's a movie playing y'all! Greatest
movie of all time!
User110.20.09 - 2:49 pm
reply
just wait til you get to the other side of the table... wait... i mean.. wait til you become a lawyer... which means...
oh yeah... you wont be at our table anymore.
md2 responding to a
comment by la duderina
10.20.09 - 2:51 pm
reply
actually... we might have to trade in the table for your services.... and im sure you'll take it
md210.20.09 - 2:52 pm
reply
If you can take the time to learn all the laws, you'll be able to hack them to do what you want. It's a lot like programming.
braydon responding to a
comment by la duderina
10.20.09 - 2:58 pm
reply
not quite.
If it was that easy, 30% of first year law students wouldn't flunk out.
If it was that easy, everyone would do it.
la duderina responding to a
comment by braydon
10.20.09 - 3:02 pm
reply
...but the cop argued that when the law says "right turn is authorized," and the judge completely threw out the idea of the door zone. ...
That's two separate things. Where you avoiding a car door? Or a right turn lane?
braydon10.20.09 - 3:04 pm
reply
the fact that so many retards and morally challenged pass the bar is impressive too though.
md2 responding to a
comment by la duderina
10.20.09 - 3:06 pm
reply
seriously though poodles..
saying "I'll spare you the details" then asking for legal advice is like saying "I won't give you any tools but here fix my bike"
la duderina10.20.09 - 3:06 pm
reply
DID YOU DO A TRIAL BY DECLARATION FIRST?
X-Large10.20.09 - 3:07 pm
reply
well that's why I say you don't have to be
smart to get into law school or get through law school...just a hard worker.
so they are retards that work hard.
my problem is I am smart...just not a hard worker. uhhhh shit.
la duderina responding to a
comment by md2
10.20.09 - 3:08 pm
reply
I'm not saying anyone can do it. I'm just not saying that the information is secret, and requires money to obtain. If it was secret then there would be injustice to society.
braydon responding to a
comment by la duderina
10.20.09 - 3:08 pm
reply
precisely... i was hoping to get that out of you...
That why hard work doesnt pay off across the board, which means its a bit unfair what lawyers earn compared to other "hard workers".
Im not hating... its just a tough pill to swallow when you want to do right for a price.
Look, lawyers can ask for $$$$, because what will one do otherwise? Its a market like anything else.
I may pick up a do-it-yourself for a leaky faucet, but theres something more valuable on the line if Im being accused for some crime I didnt commit.
In that sense.. *sometimes*--its robbery (thats my opinion)
md2 responding to a
comment by la duderina
10.20.09 - 3:14 pm
reply
A communities that keep it's laws secret from it's members, is unjust.
braydon10.20.09 - 3:15 pm
reply
and you know, its more than knowing the rules, you have to dig through caselaw and know how courts will interpret certain things...its way more vast than you are making it sound.
lawyering is not knowledge, it is a skill.
la duderina responding to a
comment by braydon
10.20.09 - 3:17 pm
reply
well then it sounds like there is a portion of information that is secret, no?
braydon responding to a
comment by la duderina
10.20.09 - 3:18 pm
reply
Publicity is a huge aspect in political theory, when thinking about a just society.
In short, everyone (within a given society) should be able to have access to the terms, agreements, precepts (whatever) that govern, bond, oblige the persons of that community to each other or to some set of principles.
It would be unfair (clearly) to be held to a rule or such, that you are not only unaware of, but are not able to know.
Publicity
md2 responding to a
comment by braydon
10.20.09 - 3:19 pm
reply
having a certain skillset has nothing to do with having information.
you know, like riding a bike is a skill...
and no. all courts publish their decisions. go ahead and read some. see how much fun you have and if you can easily interpret it and apply the rule and reasoning to new factual situations. go ahead!
la duderina responding to a
comment by braydon
10.20.09 - 3:21 pm
reply
skill is applied knowledge
braydon responding to a
comment by la duderina
10.20.09 - 3:22 pm
reply
exactly, and learning HOW to apply it is what you get in lawschool, and that's what you are paying for when you pay a lawyer, a person who knows who to apply the rules.
go take the LSATs and go to law school and then tell me how fucking easy it is.
la duderina responding to a
comment by braydon
10.20.09 - 3:24 pm
reply
thats why I posted of the comparison to religious texts.
There are not only doctrines to learn, but different doctrines all together.
The sad part of law (except to those who love thinking about it) is that there is not much agreement on what certain laws mean, who they apply to and in what circumstances.... blah, blah, blah...
A good judge, i suppose would be schooled in most interpretations, and should be able to weed out the bullshit, from honest argument (vague... dont ask me to define)...
Anyhow... the hierarchy is difficult and saddening in many respects, because, im guessing from experiences, that most lawyers care less about whether the arguments are just... but whether they will get them paid.
How many lawyers are really interested in political theory, and really interested in promoting justice? You learn the law, learn how to work within in it... and you try to get paid and make a career out of it.
md2 responding to a
comment by la duderina
10.20.09 - 3:26 pm
reply
Programming is not that easy either.
If it was that easy, everyone would do it.
Some people have the discipline and the aptitude to acquire that type of knowledge and some don't.
One big difference between programming and lawyering though is that you don't need a license to program for others but you do need a license to practice law. The lawyers enjoy this built in monopoly.
You don't need 4 years of law school to acquire the knowledge to represent someone in traffic court. You could have the equivalent of a nurse as opposed to a doctor to represent you in traffic court but it's not allowed.
Since it's cheaper to pay the ticket than to hire a lawyer you won't find many lawyers in traffic cases except for DUIs. The Tom Forsyth lawyer is an ambulance chaser. He wouldn't take a traffic case. It has no $$$$.
Tortuga thought he had a good chance by bringing in a DVD that supported his position but the judge did not allow it. Someone with more experience maybe would have advised to bring blown up illustrations instead or he would know the right language to force the judge to accept the video as evidence.
If you are going to represent yourself in Traffic Court, please take the time and read the book
Fight your ticket and win by NOLO press. It's worth the 20 bucks but you can also find at many public libraries.
marino responding to a
comment by la duderina
10.20.09 - 3:41 pm
reply
Lawyers are leaches that will suck you dry when you most need help.
Scum of the planet.....
Debut21310.20.09 - 3:51 pm
reply
That's a pretty gross oversimplification. There are plenty of unscrupulous lawyers out there, but there are plenty of unscrupulous everything. Cops. Teachers. CEOs. Husbands.
Ms. Stephanie responding to a
comment by Debut213
10.20.09 - 3:57 pm
reply
Some great lawyers are the reason this country and other countries are held accountable and why laws are progressing from past unjust laws
md2 responding to a
comment by Debut213
10.20.09 - 4:02 pm
reply
Yeah it's the difference between a hacker that uses their knowledge of software to crack it, and the hacker that uses their knowledge to fix it.
braydon responding to a
comment by md2
10.20.09 - 4:06 pm
reply
"ha ha ha, had to find that funny
So I said "nah man she'll work hard for the money.
And calling her a bro? Don't even try it.
Now sit down and eat your slice a pizza and be quiet."
BICYKILLER responding to a
comment by TheDude
10.20.09 - 4:06 pm
reply
And then there are vigilantes.
braydon10.20.09 - 4:07 pm
reply
I'd rather pay a lawyer to fix a law, than to crack it for my benefit.
braydon10.20.09 - 4:09 pm
reply
You could file an appeal for "improper exclusion of evidence" about the DVD, and try to get a different judge to rehear your case.
It's unlikely that a lawyer is going to take this, unless you want to pay them $1500-2500 (which is what the standard traffic ticket lawyers charge), which is expensive, but at $200 an hour +, it's pretty standard.
You can file the appeal yourself though. It just takes time and effort and patience and respect for the court.
You probably won't win, especially since you've already been found guilty once, and have conceded that you were riding 2 abreast, and therefore not keeping as close the the right as you could have been, but if you've got the time, give it a shot.
JB10.20.09 - 4:12 pm
reply
POSSIBLE REVISION TO V.C. Section 21202 (in bold).
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards,
a door zone, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
Now their is no possibility for misinterpretation.
braydon10.20.09 - 4:18 pm
reply
you are going to have to define door zone and substandard width lanes.
la duderina responding to a
comment by braydon
10.20.09 - 4:20 pm
reply
oops sorry I see your def for substandard width lane
la duderina10.20.09 - 4:21 pm
reply
I've read cases where the entire decision hinged on what the word "chicken" means.
there is always possibility for misinterpretation.
la duderina10.20.09 - 4:22 pm
reply
For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
When does this circumstance occur? Who/what determines when a car and bike cannot travel side by side safely? Are we referring to an actual amount of space (defined by feet or the like)?
md2 responding to a
comment by braydon
10.20.09 - 4:23 pm
reply
You probably won't win, especially since you've already been found guilty once, and have conceded that you were riding 2 abreast, and therefore not keeping as close the the right as you could have been, but if you've got the time, give it a shot.
Well there were no cars around them at the time. He's told me the story and he said they were alone on the street. I don't think you need to be as far right as practical if there is no other traffic.
Gav responding to a
comment by JB
10.20.09 - 4:24 pm
reply
It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
--Bill Clinton
md2 responding to a
comment by la duderina
10.20.09 - 4:25 pm
reply
POSSIBLE REVISION TO V.C. Section 21202 (in bold and red).
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards,
a door zone, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane
; furthermore, a "door zone" is the street that is occupied when any door of a vehicles open.
braydon10.20.09 - 4:29 pm
reply
right there. THAT's the beauty of being a lawyer. lol
@Debut213
Last year I volunteered in a program where law students accompanied lawyers and social workers to the social services offices downtown. We worked there all day helping the hungry, homeless and needy get much needed governmental funds. I remember one man specifically who I helped, he was badly handicapped and in great pain. He had gone to the office to try to get aid to get a ride to a hospital. He was too crippled by the pain to walk there. They sent him away. I stepped in, and they ended up giving him bus tokens to get to the hospital. Sure, that's not much, but not quite "scummy" either.
la duderina responding to a
comment by md2
10.20.09 - 4:32 pm
reply
Yeah. Correction: less likely for misinterpretation.
braydon responding to a
comment by la duderina
10.20.09 - 4:33 pm
reply
I think a stronger wording would be:
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards,
door zones, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane
; furthermore, a "door zone" is the portion of the road that is occupied by the open door of any given vehicle.
danya responding to a
comment by braydon
10.20.09 - 4:36 pm
reply
I like this stuff. I spent every morning in high school playing with the wording of laws.
danya responding to a
comment by braydon
10.20.09 - 4:39 pm
reply
This could also be more verbose:
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
That's all they have....
braydon10.20.09 - 4:40 pm
reply
"reasonably necessary"
--please omit this... this will cause endless debate
"For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane"
--Again, how will this be defined. one person might think any lane without a bike lane is too narrow? Does it mean a car and bike cannot fit? What if its a mini-cooper? What if the bike and car do fit? Will there being signs indicating that such a lane is substandard?
md2 responding to a
comment by danya
10.20.09 - 4:45 pm
reply
Good point, "reasonably necessary" = vague.
braydon responding to a
comment by md2
10.20.09 - 4:48 pm
reply
revision:
furthermore, a "door zone" is the portion of the road that is occupied by the open door of any
moving or non-moving vehicle.
braydon responding to a
comment by danya
10.20.09 - 4:54 pm
reply
"Substandard width lane" is defined as less than 14 ft. wide, although I can't remember where that is in V.C., so I think it comes from court precedent. The arguments about different cars are null, since the cars can be expected to pass the cyclist before the cyclist even has time to ascertain the individual size of a car. Therefore, the cyclist should be expected to ride in such a way that a car of ANY width can share the lane, or else take the lane to ensure his or her safety.
I think "reasonably necessary" is actually a good wording, since it allows the individual cyclist to determine what is a hazard, rather than the policymakers, who are often less inclined to accept the fact that cyclists know what poses a threat to them. Changing it to just "necessary" would mean explicitly defining what is necessary and what is it, rather than the open, discretionary list already written into the V.C.
danya responding to a
comment by md2
10.20.09 - 4:58 pm
reply
It can go both ways, for or against the cyclist.
braydon responding to a
comment by danya
10.20.09 - 4:59 pm
reply
*explicitly defining what is necessary and what is
not,
danya10.20.09 - 5:00 pm
reply
True. I am of the opinion that changing it would make it almost exclusively against the cyclist. But that's the sort of thing that you need that real lawyer training we were talking about earlier to understand and debate, so my opinion's not worth much.
It does have the advantage of already being a part of the codified law. Inertia's a powerful force.
danya responding to a
comment by braydon
10.20.09 - 5:02 pm
reply
...and on the note, I'm off to physics class.
danya10.20.09 - 5:03 pm
reply
unless a substandard lane is marked as such... or defined as a width 12', 14'... then how does on know? Too many assumption to think about when riding... ignore laws
should I take a measuring tape out when I ride through narrower, than Im accustomed to lanes? How do i ascertain the size of a lane, just as Im not expect to ascertain the size of a vehicle?
Plus most lanes in L.A. must be less than 14' in width... maybe Im wrong... but again, im not trying to really trying to be right.
reasonably necessary is horrible. Please give an example of something reasonably necessary, that is not debatable. Is it reasonable to travel next to a car in a substandard lane (maybe your claim is -- its never reasonable), but lets say, like before its a mini cooper. Therefore I determine it is reasonable... but is it necessary?
what the hell do I care... fuck all this
md2 responding to a
comment by danya
10.20.09 - 5:08 pm
reply
All laws are public information, all you really need is time to study it.
if only it were that simple. in law school, you'll learn how to expose a liar (like my cop, who was one smooth pig) anticipate what questions the judge will ask, or learn to suck his dick from across the room.
knowing the law is one thing. lawyering is knowing how to argue it and win.
tortuga_veloce responding to a
comment by braydon
10.20.09 - 5:11 pm
reply
Sounds like a flaw in the system to me. Such "manipulation" shouldn't be allowed for.
braydon responding to a
comment by tortuga_veloce
10.20.09 - 5:16 pm
reply
Which what lawyers can help us do; improve laws to make sure that our laws do not allow for this.
braydon responding to a
comment by TheDude
10.20.09 - 5:39 pm
reply
I really should be working though.... back to it I go!
braydon10.20.09 - 5:52 pm
reply
"Which what lawyers can help us do; improve laws to make sure that our laws do not allow for this."
NO, that's what politicians, and politically involved citizens can do.
Except that it's really really boring and tedious and most people don't have that much patience.
If you want to change things, start writing your congresspersons and city councilpersons, and contributing a few extra bucks to their re-election campaigns. If enough people do that, things get changed.
JB responding to a
comment by braydon
10.20.09 - 9:55 pm
reply
"our answer to the great question is the only logical one. our science is great."
coldcut10.20.09 - 10:39 pm
reply
" I will personally kill the time child and eat his entrails on my tummeh"
Gav responding to a
comment by coldcut
10.20.09 - 10:44 pm
reply
NO, that's what politicians, and politically involved citizens can do.
There are lots of lawyers who are on staff to politicians who actually draft the legislation. There are also lawyers working with politically involved citizens and with lobbying organizations to also help draft legislation.
mk4524 responding to a
comment by JB
10.20.09 - 10:54 pm
reply
I'm struggling with understanding what you got a ticket for.... When you say riding 2 abreast.... Were you riding with someone else? Can you scan or take a photo of your ticket and post here?
Roadblock responding to a
comment by tortuga_veloce
10.21.09 - 4:41 am
reply
Yeah...I still don't get it either. What was the violation? What was your argument? What were you trying to prove with the video?
What was the reason for denying the admission of your video? I'm guessing it was "relevance" ?
I'd suggest ordering a transcript of your trial and really taking some time to review it and determine if it's really appealable and worth your time. You have to get this directly from the court reporter.
That Nolo's book on traffic tickets that Marino talked about is probably also a good cheap resource.
@duderina
If it's any consolation...I know where you're coming from. Once you're on this side of the table...nothing will ever be the same again.
DJwheels responding to a
comment by Roadblock
10.21.09 - 6:13 am
reply
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
Calm down, bro.