Goodbye red light camera tickets!

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

ThomPaine:

Let's see the proof that you won a red light camera ticket case in Atlanta, with or without the help of some Ticketslayer doofus who was practicing law without a license.

Show me you won, or else I will know you're just blowing smoke again.

Hey how about YOU, yourself showing "the proof" of YOUR own "license" to "practice" "law," before you ingratiate your floundering ego by calling someone else denigrating names and leveling speculative, presumptive allegations?

"Let's see the" verifiably valid substantive "proof," "or else I will know you're just blowing smoke..."

[Livefire]

Lawdog,

Im not sure what you quoted out of the GA Code is always what happens. I believe stats are kept SOMEWHERE with in the DMV, and I believe they are available for purchase by the insurance companies. If the insurance companies violate the code by using the info to raise rates, I dont see there is any penalty for them by doing so. It will be up to the guy who got his rates jacked to exhaust an administrative appeal thru the insurance company and if unsuccessful, litigate the matter in court. Sucks to be him! Nice job security for you guys! Gotta keep those billable hours a comin'!

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by Livefire

Lawdog,

Im not sure what you quoted out of the GA Code is always what happens.

Of course it's not always what happens. It's only the law in Georgia. What the law is in the other 49 states and the District of Columbia, I don't know. But I thought I made that clear in the first post..."I don't know what the law is in other states, but here..."

Or words to that effect.

[Shoonra]

There have been some very legitimate and effective protests against the red light cameras in different places.

I recall reading, last year, that it was discovered, in some town whose name I can't remember, that the timing on the traffic lights was deliberately fiddled with to shorten the green and yellow lights and thereby increase the risk of a driver getting nailed by the camera.

In DC about two years ago, it was discovered that hundreds of drivers had received tickets by mail -- and had paid them by mail -- on the basis of a camera that was supposed to get red light violators but through some stupidity had been set up facing the driveway of a parking lot, in the middle of a block, and was recording cars leaving the parking lot, where there was no traffic light.

One favorable element of the red light camera is, since it can only prove whose car is going through the light but not who the driver was, the penalty is merely a money fine upon the car owner, but not points on anyone's driving license.

[Livefire]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Of course it's not always what happens. It's only the law in Georgia. What the law is in the other 49 states and the District of Columbia, I don't know. But I thought I made that clear in the first post..."I don't know what the law is in other states, but here..."

Or words to that effect.

I'm saying that the state of GA doesnt necessarily follow it's own code. Whether or not an abstract is sent to the DMV, the state still keeps some sort of records in its database and I wouldn't be surprised those records are sold to the insurance companies. If they do in fact get those records, you can bet your sweet backside that data will be used against you and the burden of proving that is on the individual. Of course its possible that the state only releases aggregate data, but that violates the spirit if not the letter of the code.

Oh well, nothing wrong with red light and speed cameras that a few dozen rednecks armed with shotguns loaded with double aught cant take care of! :-) I guess that why the code makes a reference to covering or obscurings parts of the body eh!?

[ThomPaine]

lawyerdawg,

i refuse to comply with your current request as i have endevoured to do so in the past and you only reply with code pastes, lawyering antics, bullchit and obfuscation...

If you can pull your head out of the sand for a second and think like a logical rational man and realise there is lots of merit to what is being discussed here and members have proven time and again that many of these strategies are successful, then I MAY be willing to provide you with my personal information to verify the aforementioned situation.

When we discussed it before you were not satisfied that the red light ticket against THOM was dismissed because of any arguements, fillings or substance and stated instead that the court was probably overloaded or some such nonsense..

I have no desire to expend my time, energy and resources trying to convince yourself or any other non believing obfuscationist that i won a case against a municipal corporation known as The City of Alpharetta and why. I have better things to do with my time.

I bid you good day cur,

Thom

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

lawyerdawg,

i refuse to comply with your current request as i have endevoured to do so in the past and you only reply with code pastes, lawyering antics, bullchit and obfuscation...

Translation:

No, I can't prove this. Even though anything I filed with the municipal court of Alpharetta, Georgia would be a matter of public record, I am not going to provide a case number. Because if I did, Lawdog would be able to search the court's files and see that things did not happen the way I claim they did.

Like David (DiM) Merrill and others on this site, you claim great results and then fail to provide proof thereof when challenged. DiM posts links to documents, but the documents are so heavily redacted they are useless for proving anything. You don't even do that.

You run like the scared little punk you are. To quote Ice-T, you're one of those guys who "talk a mean fight, but fight like hos." Not a real man, in other words.

Don't bother with your fantasy tales again, Thom. Unless you want to make me laugh again, and call you on the carpet again, asking for proof.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Translation:

Like David (DiM) Merrill and others on this site, you claim great results and then fail to provide proof thereof when challenged.

DiM posts links to documents, but the documents are so heavily redacted they are useless for proving anything.

You don't even do that.

You run like the scared little punk you are.

To quote Ice-T, you're one of those guys who "talk a mean fight, but fight like hos."

Not a real man, in other words.

Don't bother with your fantasy tales again, Thom.

Unless you want to make me laugh again, and call you on the carpet again, asking for proof.

Translation:


"I don't have to "prove up" my "license to practice" OR post any substantive proof that my own "legal theories" have EVER "worked" in "court," but YOU do."

"I also have to "reference" your "manhood" because I had to hide a "glock" where my "c**k" oughta' be."

Talk about a "scared little punk..."

?Ouien es mas macho, no?

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Sort of like...ummm, YOU?

Indeed, I must say, my boy.

You "say" you are a "lawyer," son?

You "SAY" you are a "lawyer?"

So you "SAY."