Can anyone answer this question?

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by johngr

Not only do you not acknowledge when called on it in a previous post, that the prima facie unfairness of infraction court is not excused by driving being SO-CALLED (hear that, Codee?) privilege, you reiterate the same faulty premise here. A guy in court for jaywalking or building a fire outside the ring at the beach cannot necessarily afford a car!

I did not equate traffic court with other things that can get you a ticket, but, yes, they don't provide free lawyers for jaywalking or improper campfires. The "right" to a free lawyer only applies to offenses that are punished with jail time.

The notion at the heart of traffic law is not that sitting behind the steering wheel is a privilege, but doing so on a state/municipal/federal road is a privilege. On your own 40 acres you can carve donut holes in your lawn, let your pre-teens drive, let your senile grandparents drive, be drunk as a skunk behind the wheel. It is only the moment you have the public road beneath you that the traffic laws kick in.

Oddly enough, there were at least a few traffic laws back in Deadwood. But one of the reasons that traffic laws became so much more voluminous in the 20th century was that there had been limits on what a horse would do no matter how drunk, blind, or stupid the guy holding the reins was; the invention of the automobile engine eliminated (at least) half the brains that had governed the horse cart.

[johngr]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I did not equate traffic court with other things that can get you a ticket, but, yes, they don't provide free lawyers for jaywalking or improper campfires. The "right" to a free lawyer only applies to offenses that are punished with jail time.

You cannot separate them-- they are one and the same.

I gather you're backing away from this position:

"So this is unusual compared with other courts, and if it [the rules of traffic court] seems unfair - the matter at issue is the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on the public roads, and, being a privilege and not an inherent right, it might be subject to restrictions and such that would be considered excessive or unfair in other fields of law."


Who said anything about the right to a "free lawyer"?

"...one of the reasons that traffic laws became so much more voluminous in the 20th century was that there had been limits on what a horse would do no matter how drunk, blind, or stupid the guy holding the reins was; the invention of the automobile engine eliminated (at least) half the brains that had governed the horse cart."

I think it has more to do with generating much more revenue for the state municipalities and for insurance companies and attorneys. The system has become monstrous and Kafkaesque. I would much rather take my chances of getting hit by a drunk, blind or stupid guy who is not already in prison for reckless endangerment or some other real (read: common law) crime his lack of judgment caused him to commit than to take my (far greater) chances of getting fleeced for $300 for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign (while endangering noone).

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by johngr

Not only do you not acknowledge when called on it in a previous post, that the prima facie unfairness of infraction court is not excused by driving being SO-CALLED (hear that, Codee?) privilege, you reiterate the same faulty premise here. A guy in court for jaywalking or building a fire outside the ring at the beach cannot necessarily afford a car!

Of course she won't respond to Codee's challenge. She exhibits little capacity for independent thought and no doubt entering an arena where she would actually need to do just that intimidates her. If it's not already written in some court opinion or provided by one of her legal cohorts she wouldn't know what to say in a debate with Codee.

[Dillon Hunt]

Originally Posted by harps

A Traffic Stop Is Not A Crime! There Is No Investigation To Conduct Unless You Commit An Act To Raise The Level.

A Simple Traffic Stop Should Entail You Getting A Ticket For A Traffice Violation Or A Defective Vehicle Type Violation.

It Was Never Meant For The Officer To Ask You Where You Are Going Or Where You Came From. That Is None Of His Business. However If He Tells You That A Vehicle Matching The Color Of Your Was Involved In A Crime, Only Then Would I Tell Him Where I Have Been Or Where I Was Coming From.

The Time Of The Traffic Stop Is Important, If The Officer Keep You Beyond What Is Reasponable, Then You Can Sue Him For That. A Lady In Florida Got $25,000 For Being Kept 19 Minutes.

For Your Information Only-not Legal Advice.


Knarf

If a traffic stop is not a crime or a criminal investigation, then I must be free to go at any time during the stop, Right?

Am I free to go, it is not criminal? Yes or No and Why !!!

[Dillon Hunt]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I did not equate traffic court with other things that can get you a ticket, but, yes, they don't provide free lawyers for jaywalking or improper campfires. The "right" to a free lawyer only applies to offenses that are punished with jail time.

The notion at the heart of traffic law is not that sitting behind the steering wheel is a privilege, but doing so on a state/municipal/federal road is a privilege. On your own 40 acres you can carve donut holes in your lawn, let your pre-teens drive, let your senile grandparents drive, be drunk as a skunk behind the wheel. It is only the moment you have the public road beneath you that the traffic laws kick in.

Oddly enough, there were at least a few traffic laws back in Deadwood. But one of the reasons that traffic laws became so much more voluminous in the 20th century was that there had been limits on what a horse would do no matter how drunk, blind, or stupid the guy holding the reins was; the invention of the automobile engine eliminated (at least) half the brains that had governed the horse cart.

All the roads belong to the People not the gov. We are tenants in Common.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Dillon Hunt

I'm confused as to what the heck is going on in these cases and how criminal and civil process is being ignored. Uless they are going under Adm. process, which I would think you still would have to follow civil or criminal process on this. Please clearify.

"A 'summary proceeding' is not an action, though analogous to its
purpose and scope, it is special proceeding. Properly speaking,
therefore, there can be no judgment in summary proceedings, though
the final order entered is frequently referred to as a judgment,
and is in effect a judgment"
Seymour vs Hughs, 105 NYS 249, 250

.......................

[johngr]

Rationale for the limited rights in infraction cases: that the accused cannot be jailed for these offenses (it has nothing to do with driving "privilege" as Shoonra argues)

The rights given up: 1) Jury trial 2) Court-appointed counsel

Rights retained: right to discovery, right due process and to a fair and impartial trial, (arguably absent in California) right to counsel, right to use the processes of the court to subpoena witnesses & evidence, right to face one's accuser, right to avoid self-incrimination, and any other rights one has at higher levels

In North Carolina and Georgia and possibly other states, btw, it is possible to get a jury trial in an infraction case. When The Honorable Rubber Stamp finds you guilty, you can appeal and get a trial de novo with a jury.

In California, Washington, Pennsylvania and other states there is no need for a People's representative in any step of the process of fleecing traffic court victims. In People v. Marcroft, the California Supreme Court admitted that the reason for this is economic. They get to keep more of the money from the fines. This evidently trumps the need for the appearance of fairness despite the lip service given in People v. Carlucci.

My argument, once again, has nothing to do with a "free lawyer". All I'm saying is that it would make it somewhat more fair, given the fact that no bar cult member need be involved in any step of the process, if the counsel for the accused were not required to be an attorney either. They admit that it's a procedurally streamlined process and it should not require that level of training. I realize there's not much of a chance of getting a supreme court decision or legislation dropping that requirement for many different reasons.