Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
what's the (legal) term for .....
38 views
Skip to first unread message
hymie!
Mar 25, 2013, 1:07:11 PM3/25/13
to
In theory, there is some law or rule or requirement that says, for
example, that a policeman cannot cite me for "driving badly." He must
cite me for "driving 55 miles per hour in a 45-mile-per-hour zone" or
"failure to signal" or "illegal lane change" or "driving on the sidewalk",
but the citation must, as I understand it, spell out what the rule I
broke was, and either what specifically I was doing that violated it,
and/or what specifically I must do to stop violating it (such as repair
a broken headlight).
Is there a term for this rule, that if a policeman gave me a ticket
for "driving badly", I would go to court and say "This ticket is
invalid because ... "
(in Maryland, if that makes a difference)
--hymie! http://lactose.homelinux.net/~hymie hy...@lactose.homelinux.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
example, that a policeman cannot cite me for "driving badly." He must
cite me for "driving 55 miles per hour in a 45-mile-per-hour zone" or
"failure to signal" or "illegal lane change" or "driving on the sidewalk",
but the citation must, as I understand it, spell out what the rule I
broke was, and either what specifically I was doing that violated it,
and/or what specifically I must do to stop violating it (such as repair
a broken headlight).
Is there a term for this rule, that if a policeman gave me a ticket
for "driving badly", I would go to court and say "This ticket is
invalid because ... "
(in Maryland, if that makes a difference)
--hymie! http://lactose.homelinux.net/~hymie hy...@lactose.homelinux.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Wright
Mar 25, 2013, 1:19:38 PM3/25/13
to
--
Tim W
Greg Goss
Mar 25, 2013, 1:37:39 PM3/25/13
to
hy...@lactose.homelinux.net (hymie!) wrote:
>In theory, there is some law or rule or requirement that says, for
>example, that a policeman cannot cite me for "driving badly." He must
>cite me for "driving 55 miles per hour in a 45-mile-per-hour zone" or
>"failure to signal" or "illegal lane change" or "driving on the sidewalk",
>but the citation must, as I understand it, spell out what the rule I
>broke was, and either what specifically I was doing that violated it,
>and/or what specifically I must do to stop violating it (such as repair
>a broken headlight).
>
>Is there a term for this rule, that if a policeman gave me a ticket
>for "driving badly", I would go to court and say "This ticket is
>invalid because ... "
In 1979, an officer gave me a ticket for 5 points (versus the normal
>In theory, there is some law or rule or requirement that says, for
>example, that a policeman cannot cite me for "driving badly." He must
>cite me for "driving 55 miles per hour in a 45-mile-per-hour zone" or
>"failure to signal" or "illegal lane change" or "driving on the sidewalk",
>but the citation must, as I understand it, spell out what the rule I
>broke was, and either what specifically I was doing that violated it,
>and/or what specifically I must do to stop violating it (such as repair
>a broken headlight).
>
>Is there a term for this rule, that if a policeman gave me a ticket
>for "driving badly", I would go to court and say "This ticket is
>invalid because ... "
3) for "excessive speeding" versus "speeding". He said that I was
lucky that he didn't want to jump through the hoops to prove "driving
without due care and attention" or "dangerous driving".
It sounds like either of those latter two are a nice translation of
"driving badly".
--
I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.
Les Albert
Mar 25, 2013, 1:39:14 PM3/25/13
to
On 25 Mar 2013 17:07:11 GMT, hy...@lactose.homelinux.net (hymie!)
wrote:
>In theory, there is some law or rule or requirement that says, for
>example, that a policeman cannot cite me for "driving badly." He must
>cite me for "driving 55 miles per hour in a 45-mile-per-hour zone" or
>"failure to signal" or "illegal lane change" or "driving on the sidewalk",
>but the citation must, as I understand it, spell out what the rule I
>broke was, and either what specifically I was doing that violated it,
>and/or what specifically I must do to stop violating it (such as repair
>a broken headlight).
>Is there a term for this rule, that if a policeman gave me a ticket
>for "driving badly", I would go to court and say "This ticket is
>invalid because ... "
>(in Maryland, if that makes a difference)
It might make a difference in Maryland. See the newspaper article at:
http://stopthemud.org/eCV
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extra fine for bad driving part of proposed state budget
O'Malley would create new fines for drunken driving, speeding to raise
revenue
27, 2011|By Annie Linskey, The Baltimore Sun
There are speeding tickets and penalties for driving drunk. But if an
obscure provision in Gov. Martin O'Malley's budget proposal becomes
law, motorists in Maryland will have another sanction to worry about:
a fine for bad driving.
Get caught going 85 on the highway twice in two years? On top of the
$1,080 in traffic fines you've earned, you'd owe the state $1,500.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I couldn't find if the proposal became law or not, so you may want to
research it some more.
Les
wrote:
>In theory, there is some law or rule or requirement that says, for
>example, that a policeman cannot cite me for "driving badly." He must
>cite me for "driving 55 miles per hour in a 45-mile-per-hour zone" or
>"failure to signal" or "illegal lane change" or "driving on the sidewalk",
>but the citation must, as I understand it, spell out what the rule I
>broke was, and either what specifically I was doing that violated it,
>and/or what specifically I must do to stop violating it (such as repair
>a broken headlight).
>Is there a term for this rule, that if a policeman gave me a ticket
>for "driving badly", I would go to court and say "This ticket is
>invalid because ... "
>(in Maryland, if that makes a difference)
http://stopthemud.org/eCV
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extra fine for bad driving part of proposed state budget
O'Malley would create new fines for drunken driving, speeding to raise
revenue
27, 2011|By Annie Linskey, The Baltimore Sun
There are speeding tickets and penalties for driving drunk. But if an
obscure provision in Gov. Martin O'Malley's budget proposal becomes
law, motorists in Maryland will have another sanction to worry about:
a fine for bad driving.
Get caught going 85 on the highway twice in two years? On top of the
$1,080 in traffic fines you've earned, you'd owe the state $1,500.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I couldn't find if the proposal became law or not, so you may want to
research it some more.
Les
bill van
Mar 25, 2013, 1:39:55 PM3/25/13
to
In article <neGdnQRnmf20Gs3M...@supernews.com>,
Careless driving and driving without due care and attention both ring
bells for me. Reckless, too. I'm sure the wording varies between
jurisdictions, but each one will have several such designations that can
be applied to various degrees of bad driving. Some of them will have
"causing injury" or "causing death" appended to them, and those will be
the most severe.
A recent addition in some places, aimed at drivers talking on cell
phones or even texting, is "distracted driving".
bill
bells for me. Reckless, too. I'm sure the wording varies between
jurisdictions, but each one will have several such designations that can
be applied to various degrees of bad driving. Some of them will have
"causing injury" or "causing death" appended to them, and those will be
the most severe.
A recent addition in some places, aimed at drivers talking on cell
phones or even texting, is "distracted driving".
bill
D.F. Manno
Mar 25, 2013, 2:03:44 PM3/25/13
to
In article <5150843f$0$51953$862e...@ngroups.net>,
However, �21-901.1 of the Maryland Transportation Code defines reckless
and negligent driving rather specifically:
> (a)�Reckless driving. -- A person is guilty of reckless driving
> if he drives a motor vehicle:
>
> ���(1)�In wanton or willful disregard for the safety of persons
> or property; or
>
> ���(2)�In a manner that indicates a wanton or willful disregard
> for the safety of persons or property.
>
> (b)�Negligent driving. -- A person is guilty of negligent
> driving if he drives a motor vehicle in a careless or imprudent
> manner that endangers any property or the life or person of any
> individual.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
GOP delenda est!
hy...@lactose.homelinux.net (hymie!) wrote:
> In theory, there is some law or rule or requirement that says, for
> example, that a policeman cannot cite me for "driving badly." He must
> cite me for "driving 55 miles per hour in a 45-mile-per-hour zone" or
> "failure to signal" or "illegal lane change" or "driving on the sidewalk",
> but the citation must, as I understand it, spell out what the rule I
> broke was, and either what specifically I was doing that violated it,
> and/or what specifically I must do to stop violating it (such as repair
> a broken headlight).
>
> Is there a term for this rule, that if a policeman gave me a ticket
> for "driving badly", I would go to court and say "This ticket is
> invalid because ... "
>
> (in Maryland, if that makes a difference)
"... it lacks specificity."
> In theory, there is some law or rule or requirement that says, for
> example, that a policeman cannot cite me for "driving badly." He must
> cite me for "driving 55 miles per hour in a 45-mile-per-hour zone" or
> "failure to signal" or "illegal lane change" or "driving on the sidewalk",
> but the citation must, as I understand it, spell out what the rule I
> broke was, and either what specifically I was doing that violated it,
> and/or what specifically I must do to stop violating it (such as repair
> a broken headlight).
>
> Is there a term for this rule, that if a policeman gave me a ticket
> for "driving badly", I would go to court and say "This ticket is
> invalid because ... "
>
> (in Maryland, if that makes a difference)
However, �21-901.1 of the Maryland Transportation Code defines reckless
and negligent driving rather specifically:
> (a)�Reckless driving. -- A person is guilty of reckless driving
> if he drives a motor vehicle:
>
> ���(1)�In wanton or willful disregard for the safety of persons
> or property; or
>
> ���(2)�In a manner that indicates a wanton or willful disregard
> for the safety of persons or property.
>
> (b)�Negligent driving. -- A person is guilty of negligent
> driving if he drives a motor vehicle in a careless or imprudent
> manner that endangers any property or the life or person of any
> individual.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
GOP delenda est!
Pastime
Mar 25, 2013, 3:33:26 PM3/25/13
to
hymie! wrote:
> In theory, there is some law or rule or requirement that says, for
> example, that a policeman cannot cite me for "driving badly." He must
> cite me for "driving 55 miles per hour in a 45-mile-per-hour zone" or
> "failure to signal" or "illegal lane change" or "driving on the sidewalk",
> but the citation must, as I understand it, spell out what the rule I
> broke was, and either what specifically I was doing that violated it,
> and/or what specifically I must do to stop violating it (such as repair
> a broken headlight).
The infraction that proves the rule?
> In theory, there is some law or rule or requirement that says, for
> example, that a policeman cannot cite me for "driving badly." He must
> cite me for "driving 55 miles per hour in a 45-mile-per-hour zone" or
> "failure to signal" or "illegal lane change" or "driving on the sidewalk",
> but the citation must, as I understand it, spell out what the rule I
> broke was, and either what specifically I was doing that violated it,
> and/or what specifically I must do to stop violating it (such as repair
> a broken headlight).
--
John
hymie!
Mar 25, 2013, 5:00:07 PM3/25/13
to
OK. While I appreciate all of the answers, I am not having
a traffic-ticket problem. It was the best I could do for an
analogy of a real legal problem that I am currently experiencing,
but am trying not to discuss in too much detail.
My wife and I received a "notice of violation" from an agency of the
county government. The notice basically said "You are violating the
code. Stop it." We responded to the notice (as required) with a request
for further information -- either, please explain what it is we are doing
that is considered "violating", or please explain what we must do to be
considered "not violating."
2 months later, I received a citiation from that same agency. The
citation basically says "You are stil violating the code. Stop it.
The fine is $250 per day until you have fixed it."
So my question is, what legal principle is there that says "When a
citation is issued, the issuing agency has a reasonable obligation to
provide either an explanation of the behavior that is considered to
be violating, or an explanation of the behavior that is required to be
considered to be not violating."
My lawyer has an idea for our strategy for fighting the citation. I want
to determine if there are other ideas for strategies that I might suggest
to her.
a traffic-ticket problem. It was the best I could do for an
analogy of a real legal problem that I am currently experiencing,
but am trying not to discuss in too much detail.
My wife and I received a "notice of violation" from an agency of the
county government. The notice basically said "You are violating the
code. Stop it." We responded to the notice (as required) with a request
for further information -- either, please explain what it is we are doing
that is considered "violating", or please explain what we must do to be
considered "not violating."
2 months later, I received a citiation from that same agency. The
citation basically says "You are stil violating the code. Stop it.
The fine is $250 per day until you have fixed it."
So my question is, what legal principle is there that says "When a
citation is issued, the issuing agency has a reasonable obligation to
provide either an explanation of the behavior that is considered to
be violating, or an explanation of the behavior that is required to be
considered to be not violating."
My lawyer has an idea for our strategy for fighting the citation. I want
to determine if there are other ideas for strategies that I might suggest
to her.
Message has been deleted
Les Albert
Mar 25, 2013, 5:27:04 PM3/25/13
to
On 25 Mar 2013 21:00:07 GMT, hy...@lactose.homelinux.net (hymie!)
wrote:
>OK. While I appreciate all of the answers, I am not having
>a traffic-ticket problem. It was the best I could do for an
>analogy of a real legal problem that I am currently experiencing,
>but am trying not to discuss in too much detail.
>My wife and I received a "notice of violation" from an agency of the
>county government. The notice basically said "You are violating the
>code. Stop it." We responded to the notice (as required) with a request
>for further information -- either, please explain what it is we are doing
>that is considered "violating", or please explain what we must do to be
>considered "not violating."
>2 months later, I received a citiation from that same agency. The
>citation basically says "You are stil violating the code. Stop it.
>The fine is $250 per day until you have fixed it."
>So my question is, what legal principle is there that says "When a
>citation is issued, the issuing agency has a reasonable obligation to
>provide either an explanation of the behavior that is considered to
>be violating, or an explanation of the behavior that is required to be
>considered to be not violating."
>My lawyer has an idea for our strategy for fighting the citation. I want
>to determine if there are other ideas for strategies that I might suggest
>to her.
Are you still referring to a Maryland county agency?
I will guess that there is no *legal principle* that says a county
agency has a reasonable obligation to provide an explanation. It's
just good practice for any agency to do that.
What is the result of speaking to someone at that agency, either by
phone or in person?
Les
wrote:
>OK. While I appreciate all of the answers, I am not having
>a traffic-ticket problem. It was the best I could do for an
>analogy of a real legal problem that I am currently experiencing,
>but am trying not to discuss in too much detail.
>My wife and I received a "notice of violation" from an agency of the
>county government. The notice basically said "You are violating the
>code. Stop it." We responded to the notice (as required) with a request
>for further information -- either, please explain what it is we are doing
>that is considered "violating", or please explain what we must do to be
>considered "not violating."
>2 months later, I received a citiation from that same agency. The
>citation basically says "You are stil violating the code. Stop it.
>The fine is $250 per day until you have fixed it."
>So my question is, what legal principle is there that says "When a
>citation is issued, the issuing agency has a reasonable obligation to
>provide either an explanation of the behavior that is considered to
>be violating, or an explanation of the behavior that is required to be
>considered to be not violating."
>My lawyer has an idea for our strategy for fighting the citation. I want
>to determine if there are other ideas for strategies that I might suggest
>to her.
I will guess that there is no *legal principle* that says a county
agency has a reasonable obligation to provide an explanation. It's
just good practice for any agency to do that.
What is the result of speaking to someone at that agency, either by
phone or in person?
Les
brad
Mar 25, 2013, 5:32:00 PM3/25/13
to
"hymie!" wrote:
> OK. While I appreciate all of the answers, I am not having
> a traffic-ticket problem. It was the best I could do for an
> analogy of a real legal problem that I am currently experiencing,
> but am trying not to discuss in too much detail.
>
> My wife and I received a "notice of violation" from an agency of the
> county government. The notice basically said "You are violating the
> code. Stop it." We responded to the notice (as required) with a request
> for further information -- either, please explain what it is we are doing
> that is considered "violating", or please explain what we must do to be
> considered "not violating."
>
> 2 months later, I received a citiation from that same agency. The
> citation basically says "You are stil violating the code. Stop it.
> The fine is $250 per day until you have fixed it."
>
> So my question is, what legal principle is there that says "When a
> citation is issued, the issuing agency has a reasonable obligation to
> provide either an explanation of the behavior that is considered to
> be violating, or an explanation of the behavior that is required to be
> considered to be not violating."
>
> My lawyer has an idea for our strategy for fighting the citation. I want
> to determine if there are other ideas for strategies that I might suggest
> to her.
I didn't see your earlier post. In Minnesota the driving thing is called
> OK. While I appreciate all of the answers, I am not having
> a traffic-ticket problem. It was the best I could do for an
> analogy of a real legal problem that I am currently experiencing,
> but am trying not to discuss in too much detail.
>
> My wife and I received a "notice of violation" from an agency of the
> county government. The notice basically said "You are violating the
> code. Stop it." We responded to the notice (as required) with a request
> for further information -- either, please explain what it is we are doing
> that is considered "violating", or please explain what we must do to be
> considered "not violating."
>
> 2 months later, I received a citiation from that same agency. The
> citation basically says "You are stil violating the code. Stop it.
> The fine is $250 per day until you have fixed it."
>
> So my question is, what legal principle is there that says "When a
> citation is issued, the issuing agency has a reasonable obligation to
> provide either an explanation of the behavior that is considered to
> be violating, or an explanation of the behavior that is required to be
> considered to be not violating."
>
> My lawyer has an idea for our strategy for fighting the citation. I want
> to determine if there are other ideas for strategies that I might suggest
> to her.
"driving inattentively" IIRC. I got that for being unable to stop on glare
ice, no harm done to anyone or anything. I was driving a car - very slowly.
BUT SO WAS THE COP!
Lawmakers have a knack for writing things for a court to resolve. I think
they have special dictionaries with words like reasonable, sufficient,
prudent, ample. Sadly, I think you need a new tactic. They will "prove"
it in court and not before.
Alfalfa Bill
Mar 25, 2013, 7:08:56 PM3/25/13
to
Due Process of Law requires notice of the charges against you with sufficient specificity to allow you to prepare a defense. Due Process is guarantied by the 5th and 14th Amendments.
hymie!
Mar 25, 2013, 7:56:18 PM3/25/13
to
In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,
Thank you!
Your comments led me to find this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_for_vagueness
which I think is the term I need. Unfortunately, it seems to apply
to criminal laws and not civil violations such as mine, but it is certainly
a step in the right direction.
Your comments led me to find this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_for_vagueness
which I think is the term I need. Unfortunately, it seems to apply
to criminal laws and not civil violations such as mine, but it is certainly
a step in the right direction.
Alfalfa Bill
Mar 25, 2013, 8:42:27 PM3/25/13
to
Due Process is not limited to criminal cases. I think it might apply here.
The government (the County) can not take your property (fine you money) without first giving you notice of the charge against you and an opportunity to respond.
Notice is meaningful only if it gives you enough specificity to tell you what the issue would be at a trial, what the state or you need to prove and what kind of evidence you need to have.
Anyway, that is my thought. Good luck!
The government (the County) can not take your property (fine you money) without first giving you notice of the charge against you and an opportunity to respond.
Notice is meaningful only if it gives you enough specificity to tell you what the issue would be at a trial, what the state or you need to prove and what kind of evidence you need to have.
Anyway, that is my thought. Good luck!
D.F. Manno
Mar 25, 2013, 10:14:48 PM3/25/13
to
In article <5150e422$0$6671$862e...@ngroups.net>,
grounds? Good luck with that.
hy...@lactose.homelinux.net (hymie!) wrote:
> Alfalfa Bill <tedth...@aol.com>, who said:
>
> >Due Process of Law requires notice of the charges against you with
> >sufficient specificity to allow you to prepare a defense. Due Process
> >is guarantied by the 5th and 14th Amendments.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Your comments led me to find this page
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_for_vagueness
> which I think is the term I need. Unfortunately, it seems to apply
> to criminal laws and not civil violations such as mine, but it is certainly
> a step in the right direction.
You're going to challenge a reckless driving citation on constitutional
> Alfalfa Bill <tedth...@aol.com>, who said:
>
> >Due Process of Law requires notice of the charges against you with
> >sufficient specificity to allow you to prepare a defense. Due Process
> >is guarantied by the 5th and 14th Amendments.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Your comments led me to find this page
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_for_vagueness
> which I think is the term I need. Unfortunately, it seems to apply
> to criminal laws and not civil violations such as mine, but it is certainly
> a step in the right direction.
grounds? Good luck with that.
Message has been deleted
Les Albert
Mar 26, 2013, 12:20:25 PM3/26/13
to
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:14:48 -0400, "D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com>
wrote:
something (he won't say what it is).
Les
wrote:
> hy...@lactose.homelinux.net (hymie!) wrote:
>> Alfalfa Bill <tedth...@aol.com>, who said:
>> >Due Process of Law requires notice of the charges against you with
>> >sufficient specificity to allow you to prepare a defense. Due Process
>> >is guarantied by the 5th and 14th Amendments.
>> Thank you!
>> Your comments led me to find this page
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_for_vagueness
>> which I think is the term I need. Unfortunately, it seems to apply
>> to criminal laws and not civil violations such as mine, but it is certainly
>> a step in the right direction.
>You're going to challenge a reckless driving citation on constitutional
>grounds? Good luck with that.
It's not a driving citation; it's a county agency order to stop doing
>> Alfalfa Bill <tedth...@aol.com>, who said:
>> >Due Process of Law requires notice of the charges against you with
>> >sufficient specificity to allow you to prepare a defense. Due Process
>> >is guarantied by the 5th and 14th Amendments.
>> Thank you!
>> Your comments led me to find this page
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_for_vagueness
>> which I think is the term I need. Unfortunately, it seems to apply
>> to criminal laws and not civil violations such as mine, but it is certainly
>> a step in the right direction.
>You're going to challenge a reckless driving citation on constitutional
>grounds? Good luck with that.
something (he won't say what it is).
Les
Nick Spalding
Mar 26, 2013, 2:05:58 PM3/26/13
to
Les Albert wrote, in <vhi3l89vnoebpse8n...@4ax.com>
on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:20:25 -0700:
I thought it was the county agency that won't say what it is.
--
Nick Spalding
on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:20:25 -0700:
--
Nick Spalding
Les Albert
Mar 26, 2013, 2:29:43 PM3/26/13
to
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:05:58 +0000, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
wrote:
According to his original posting the county agency won't tell him
what to do to correct a code violation, but I get the impression from
what he first wrote that he knows what the code violation is but
doesn't want to post about it. My guess is that it is a building code
violation.
Les
wrote:
what to do to correct a code violation, but I get the impression from
what he first wrote that he knows what the code violation is but
doesn't want to post about it. My guess is that it is a building code
violation.
Les
Message has been deleted
Les Albert
Mar 26, 2013, 2:35:11 PM3/26/13
to
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 10:32:24 -0800, Tim <not...@someisp.net> wrote:
>Oh man, was I off base. I thought it involved
>carnal relations with domestic livestock.
Well, you would think that way because you are a biologist living in a
very lonely place.
Les
>carnal relations with domestic livestock.
Well, you would think that way because you are a biologist living in a
very lonely place.
Les
Tim Wright
Mar 26, 2013, 3:24:05 PM3/26/13
to
--
Tim W
Hactar
Mar 26, 2013, 3:10:30 PM3/26/13
to
In article <obq3l8h8t6oenmo3c...@4ax.com>,
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
LIBRA: A big promotion is just around the corner for someone
much more talented than you. Laughter is the very best medicine,
remember that when your appendix bursts next week. -- Weird Al
Tim <not...@someisp.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:29:43 -0700, Les Albert
> <lalb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:29:43 -0700, Les Albert
> <lalb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Oh man, was I off base. I thought it involved
> carnal relations with domestic livestock.
Ah, so they finally caught him at animal husbandry.
> carnal relations with domestic livestock.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
LIBRA: A big promotion is just around the corner for someone
much more talented than you. Laughter is the very best medicine,
remember that when your appendix bursts next week. -- Weird Al
Message has been deleted
Nick Spalding
Mar 26, 2013, 5:16:52 PM3/26/13
to
Les Albert wrote, in <80q3l8dld4o60f9nf...@4ax.com>
on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:29:43 -0700:
I read this, in his second post, as saying that they had not told him
specifically what the violation was.
<quote>
--
Nick Spalding
on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:29:43 -0700:
specifically what the violation was.
<quote>
We responded to the notice (as required) with a request
for further information -- either, please explain what it is we are
doing that is considered "violating", or please explain what we must do
to be considered "not violating."
<end quote>
for further information -- either, please explain what it is we are
doing that is considered "violating", or please explain what we must do
to be considered "not violating."
--
Nick Spalding
Howard Hale
Mar 26, 2013, 6:26:28 PM3/26/13
to
hy...@lactose.homelinux.net (hymie!) wrote
> OK. While I appreciate all of the answers, I am not having
> a traffic-ticket problem. It was the best I could do for an
> analogy of a real legal problem that I am currently experiencing,
> but am trying not to discuss in too much detail.
>
> My wife and I received a "notice of violation" from an agency of the
> county government. The notice basically said "You are violating the
> code. Stop it." We responded to the notice (as required) with a
> request for further information -- either, please explain what it is
> we are doing that is considered "violating", or please explain what we
> must do to be considered "not violating."
>
> 2 months later, I received a citiation from that same agency. The
> citation basically says "You are stil violating the code. Stop it.
> The fine is $250 per day until you have fixed it."
>
> So my question is, what legal principle is there that says "When a
> citation is issued, the issuing agency has a reasonable obligation to
> provide either an explanation of the behavior that is considered to
> be violating, or an explanation of the behavior that is required to be
> considered to be not violating."
>
> My lawyer has an idea for our strategy for fighting the citation. I
> want to determine if there are other ideas for strategies that I might
> suggest to her.
It's possible that the root of this is an unhappy neighbor. I've heard
anecdotally that some large percentage of code issues only come up
because someone complains, and it's possible if you find the person who
complains, you'll find out what the issue really is.
If it's a vengeance thing, then that's a big mess, but it's also
possible it's just someone who doesn't think you're putting your trash
can lids on tight enough or something like that, and it's a minor thing
to fix. Or it's possible you're just caught in collateral damage -- the
real complaint is with the next door neighbor not taking care of an old
car on blocks in their backyard, but when the inspector came they also
took a look at everyone on the block and cited you for something.
I think in many places the potential universe of code violations is so
big and the number of inspectors is so small that it's possible you'll
never get a satisfactory answer unless you go to court. Again as an
anecdotal thing, based on stories of parking and traffic tickets in
court, half the time if you go and plead your case the officer won't
show, or the judge will show leniency, so that might be the best option,
maybe.
> OK. While I appreciate all of the answers, I am not having
> a traffic-ticket problem. It was the best I could do for an
> analogy of a real legal problem that I am currently experiencing,
> but am trying not to discuss in too much detail.
>
> My wife and I received a "notice of violation" from an agency of the
> county government. The notice basically said "You are violating the
> code. Stop it." We responded to the notice (as required) with a
> request for further information -- either, please explain what it is
> we are doing that is considered "violating", or please explain what we
> must do to be considered "not violating."
>
> 2 months later, I received a citiation from that same agency. The
> citation basically says "You are stil violating the code. Stop it.
> The fine is $250 per day until you have fixed it."
>
> So my question is, what legal principle is there that says "When a
> citation is issued, the issuing agency has a reasonable obligation to
> provide either an explanation of the behavior that is considered to
> be violating, or an explanation of the behavior that is required to be
> considered to be not violating."
>
> My lawyer has an idea for our strategy for fighting the citation. I
> want to determine if there are other ideas for strategies that I might
> suggest to her.
anecdotally that some large percentage of code issues only come up
because someone complains, and it's possible if you find the person who
complains, you'll find out what the issue really is.
If it's a vengeance thing, then that's a big mess, but it's also
possible it's just someone who doesn't think you're putting your trash
can lids on tight enough or something like that, and it's a minor thing
to fix. Or it's possible you're just caught in collateral damage -- the
real complaint is with the next door neighbor not taking care of an old
car on blocks in their backyard, but when the inspector came they also
took a look at everyone on the block and cited you for something.
I think in many places the potential universe of code violations is so
big and the number of inspectors is so small that it's possible you'll
never get a satisfactory answer unless you go to court. Again as an
anecdotal thing, based on stories of parking and traffic tickets in
court, half the time if you go and plead your case the officer won't
show, or the judge will show leniency, so that might be the best option,
maybe.
D.F. Manno
Mar 26, 2013, 8:14:12 PM3/26/13
to
In article <vhi3l89vnoebpse8n...@4ax.com>,
I hadn't seen his new thread before I posted the above.
If he wants relevant help, he should come right out and say what's going
on.
If he wants relevant help, he should come right out and say what's going
on.
Les Albert
Mar 26, 2013, 9:16:19 PM3/26/13
to
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:16:52 +0000, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
We may hear the end of this. As I have said here many times before,
there is always more to the story.
Les
(I now think it's zoning violation.)
wrote:
>Les Albert wrote, in <80q3l8dld4o60f9nf...@4ax.com>
> on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:29:43 -0700:
>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:05:58 +0000, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
>> wrote:
>> >Les Albert wrote,
>Les Albert wrote, in <80q3l8dld4o60f9nf...@4ax.com>
> on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:29:43 -0700:
>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:05:58 +0000, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
>> wrote:
>> >Les Albert wrote,
there is always more to the story.
Les
(I now think it's zoning violation.)
Les Albert
Mar 26, 2013, 9:16:57 PM3/26/13
to
bill van
Mar 26, 2013, 10:57:08 PM3/26/13
to
In article <dvh4l8tm6g2gj01ln...@4ax.com>,
district attorneys who prosecute the offenders": Alleged!
bill
Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com> wrote:
> We may hear the end of this. As I have said here many times before,
> there is always more to the story.
>
> Les
> (I now think it's zoning violation.)
As I always shout at the television when the narrator says, "and the
> We may hear the end of this. As I have said here many times before,
> there is always more to the story.
>
> Les
> (I now think it's zoning violation.)
district attorneys who prosecute the offenders": Alleged!
bill
Mark Brader
Mar 26, 2013, 11:36:35 PM3/26/13
to
"hymie!":
# 11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
# (a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the
# specific offence
Hope this helps.
--
Mark Brader "All this government stuff, in other words,
Toronto is not reading matter, but prefabricated
m...@vex.net parts of quarrels." -- Rudolf Flesch
My text in this article is in the public domain.
> So my question is, what legal principle is there that says "When a
> citation is issued, the issuing agency has a reasonable obligation to
> provide either an explanation of the behavior that is considered to
> be violating, or an explanation of the behavior that is required to be
> considered to be not violating."
Well, in Canada it's in a constitutional right:
> citation is issued, the issuing agency has a reasonable obligation to
> provide either an explanation of the behavior that is considered to
> be violating, or an explanation of the behavior that is required to be
> considered to be not violating."
# 11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
# (a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the
# specific offence
Hope this helps.
--
Mark Brader "All this government stuff, in other words,
Toronto is not reading matter, but prefabricated
m...@vex.net parts of quarrels." -- Rudolf Flesch
My text in this article is in the public domain.
hymie!
Mar 27, 2013, 11:25:15 AM3/27/13
to
In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,
Howard Hale <howar...@notmail.com>, who said:
>It's possible that the root of this is an unhappy neighbor.
Indeed. I know who it is. I know why he does it.
>It's possible that the root of this is an unhappy neighbor.
He is incensed by the fact that I allow my guests to park their cars
on our (public) street, in the exact spot where he would like to park
his own car.
He has determined that the following actions did not help:
(*) Banging on our door screaming and cursing
(*) Accosting people in the street screaming and cursing
(*) Blocking the curb of the street with his garbage cans
(*) Complaining to the police
So he finally found something that worked.
>Again as an
>anecdotal thing, based on stories of parking and traffic tickets in
>court, half the time if you go and plead your case the officer won't
>show, or the judge will show leniency, so that might be the best option,
>maybe.
at $2750.
hymie!
Mar 27, 2013, 11:27:58 AM3/27/13
to
In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,
Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com>, who said:
>According to his original posting the county agency won't tell him
>what to do to correct a code violation, but I get the impression from
>what he first wrote that he knows what the code violation is but
>doesn't want to post about it. My guess is that it is a building code
>violation.
Yes, both are true. The county sent me a vague citation regarding a
>According to his original posting the county agency won't tell him
>what to do to correct a code violation, but I get the impression from
>what he first wrote that he knows what the code violation is but
>doesn't want to post about it. My guess is that it is a building code
>violation.
violation that I need to correct without information as to what the
specific violation is nor the corrective action needed. And my
lawyer has, for now, asked me not to share the specifics openly.
Message has been deleted
D.F. Manno
Mar 27, 2013, 3:46:42 PM3/27/13
to
In article <51530ffe$0$45931$862e...@ngroups.net>,
us for legal advice?
hy...@lactose.homelinux.net (hymie!) wrote:
> Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com>, who said:
>
> >According to his original posting the county agency won't tell him
> >what to do to correct a code violation, but I get the impression from
> >what he first wrote that he knows what the code violation is but
> >doesn't want to post about it. My guess is that it is a building code
> >violation.
>
> Yes, both are true. The county sent me a vague citation regarding a
> violation that I need to correct without information as to what the
> specific violation is nor the corrective action needed. And my
> lawyer has, for now, asked me not to share the specifics openly.
For cryin' out loud. If you've got a lawyer, why the fuck are you asking
> Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com>, who said:
>
> >According to his original posting the county agency won't tell him
> >what to do to correct a code violation, but I get the impression from
> >what he first wrote that he knows what the code violation is but
> >doesn't want to post about it. My guess is that it is a building code
> >violation.
>
> Yes, both are true. The county sent me a vague citation regarding a
> violation that I need to correct without information as to what the
> specific violation is nor the corrective action needed. And my
> lawyer has, for now, asked me not to share the specifics openly.
us for legal advice?
Alan J Rosenthal
Mar 27, 2013, 6:24:11 PM3/27/13
to
Laws requiring specificity of criminal charges might not apply to zoning
violation notices. Zoning violation notices are probably pretty poorly
regulated. Nevertheless, I would suspect that the zoning department is
likely to respond informatively to a lawyer phoning to ask WTF they are
actually objecting to, even if they've been blowing you yourself off so far.
On the other hand, if you really do know what the issue is but are just
trying to play dumb and say that they haven't actually specified it, well,
that might not hold much water. If you know what the issue is and what
adjustment will satisfy them, I suggest you make good use of your knowledge.
(Not that I'm suggesting you should automatically comply, just that it's
not usually helpful to play dumb.)
violation notices. Zoning violation notices are probably pretty poorly
regulated. Nevertheless, I would suspect that the zoning department is
likely to respond informatively to a lawyer phoning to ask WTF they are
actually objecting to, even if they've been blowing you yourself off so far.
On the other hand, if you really do know what the issue is but are just
trying to play dumb and say that they haven't actually specified it, well,
that might not hold much water. If you know what the issue is and what
adjustment will satisfy them, I suggest you make good use of your knowledge.
(Not that I'm suggesting you should automatically comply, just that it's
not usually helpful to play dumb.)
hymie!
Mar 29, 2013, 1:52:22 PM3/29/13
to
In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,
"D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com>, who said:
>
>For cryin' out loud. If you've got a lawyer, why the fuck are you asking
>us for legal advice?
Partly, because you're a lot cheaper. :)
>
>For cryin' out loud. If you've got a lawyer, why the fuck are you asking
>us for legal advice?
I don't assume my lawyer knows *everything*. For example, she has not
once mentioned the "Due Process" aspect. Either she has discarded it
as an option, or perhaps it hasn't occurred to her. It's something I
can ask when I talk to her next month.
I never know if somebody is going to say to me "I had a similar problem;
I went to court, said the magic word Laches, and the case was instantly
dismissed."
(I know "Laches" isn't going to actually help me. It's the only magic legal
word I could think of.)
--hymie! http://lactose.homelinux.net/~hymie hy...@lactose.homelinux.net
hymie!
Mar 29, 2013, 1:55:35 PM3/29/13
to
In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,
fl...@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal), who said:
>I would suspect that the zoning department is
>likely to respond informatively to a lawyer phoning to ask WTF they are
>actually objecting to, even if they've been blowing you yourself off so far.
They did not. They blew her off too. :( She was surprised. She then
>I would suspect that the zoning department is
>likely to respond informatively to a lawyer phoning to ask WTF they are
>actually objecting to, even if they've been blowing you yourself off so far.
called the "Office of Law" -- if I understand correctly, this is the
County's lawyer, the one who has to go to court and argue the County's
case. Last I heard, the Office of Law will not return her phone calls.
--hymie! http://lactose.homelinux.net/~hymie hy...@lactose.homelinux.net
BillT...@invalid.com
Mar 31, 2013, 2:15:27 AM3/31/13
to
On 29 Mar 2013 17:55:35 GMT, hy...@lactose.homelinux.net (hymie!)
wrote:
>
>They did not. They blew her off too. :( She was surprised. She then
>called the "Office of Law" -- if I understand correctly, this is the
>County's lawyer, the one who has to go to court and argue the County's
>case. Last I heard, the Office of Law will not return her phone calls.
Right now, nose-thumbing seems like the best recourse to me.
wrote:
>
>They did not. They blew her off too. :( She was surprised. She then
>called the "Office of Law" -- if I understand correctly, this is the
>County's lawyer, the one who has to go to court and argue the County's
>case. Last I heard, the Office of Law will not return her phone calls.
0 new messages