I have been "summonsed" for jury duty (not "summoned", but "summonsed")

[Berkeley Brett]

I hope you're all well & in good spirits.

I just received a jury summons in the mail -- I am now required by law to stand by to be a juror if my service is requested.

Looking at the website of the Contra Costa County Superior Court of California, I am told that I have been "summonsed" (not "summoned"):

http://www.cc-courts.org/jury/general.aspx

The word appears six times on the page, so it is unlikely to be a typo.

Though I have been "summonsed" many times in the past, I don't recall seeing the word "summonsed" in print before, or ever having heard it spoken.

I wonder, is this a common usage throughout the English-speaking world?

Thank you for any feedback you may have....

--
Brett (in Berkeley, California, USA)
On Twitter at:
http://twitter.com/BerkeleyBrett
(You don't have to be a Twitter user to view this stream of ideas)

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 14:36:29 -0700 (PDT), Berkeley Brett
<roya...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I hope you're all well & in good spirits.
>
>I just received a jury summons in the mail -- I am now required by law to stand by to be a juror if my service is requested.
>
>Looking at the website of the Contra Costa County Superior Court of California, I am told that I have been "summonsed" (not "summoned"):
>
>http://www.cc-courts.org/jury/general.aspx
>
>The word appears six times on the page, so it is unlikely to be a typo.
>
>Though I have been "summonsed" many times in the past, I don't recall seeing the word "summonsed" in print before, or ever having heard it spoken.
>
>I wonder, is this a common usage throughout the English-speaking world?
>

There's a contingent here that feels that "common usage" means that
"most people" use it. Mark my words, this will be brought up if
anyone says "Yes" to your question.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Richard Heathfield]

On 25/06/17 22:36, Berkeley Brett wrote:
> I hope you're all well & in good spirits.
>
> I just received a jury summons in the mail -- I am now required by
> law to stand by to be a juror if my service is requested.
>
> Looking at the website of the Contra Costa County Superior Court of
> California, I am told that I have been "summonsed" (not "summoned"):
>
> http://www.cc-courts.org/jury/general.aspx
>
> The word appears six times on the page, so it is unlikely to be a
> typo.
>
> Though I have been "summonsed" many times in the past, I don't recall
> seeing the word "summonsed" in print before, or ever having heard it
> spoken.
>
> I wonder, is this a common usage throughout the English-speaking
> world?
>
> Thank you for any feedback you may have....

It's standard in the UK. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it was
'common', since summonses aren't particularly common. Most people manage
to go years and years without being summonsed. But, when they /are/
summonsed, they are indeed summonsed, not summoned.

To be summoned is to be commanded into the presence of the summoner, and
I suspect that this may be what you mean when you say you have been
"summonsed" many times. (Of course, I could be wrong!)

But to be /summonsed/ is to be commanded to appear before a judge or a
magistrate. That's a slightly different thing, because it has legal
force - AFAIK you cannot legally refuse.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Joseph C. Fineman]

Berkeley Brett <roya...@gmail.com> writes:

> Though I have been "summonsed" many times in the past, I don't recall
> seeing the word "summonsed" in print before, or ever having heard it
> spoken.
>
> I wonder, is this a common usage throughout the English-speaking
> world?

It is indeed common. The AHD lists the verb "to summons", corresponding
to the legal noun "summons". It is more precise in meaning than "to
summon". You can be summoned, but not summonsed, by your beckoning
beloved.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net

||: Always drink upstream from the herd. :||

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 22:43:51 +0100, Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk>
wrote:

Yes. To be "summonsed" is to be issued with a "summons", the legal
document.


--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Peter Moylan]

I'm used to hearing this about people charged with a crime. I don't
think I've ever heard it used to mean called up for jury duty. It seems
to work, though, in that it's an enforceable demand for you to turn up
at a court.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Ross]

The noun came in with a lot of other French legal jargon after the
conquest (Anglo-Norman, Old French sumunse, somo(u)nse, ultimately from Latin summonita). OED's first attestation is from 1290. It wasn't verbed until the 18th century, but that's early enough to account for it being used throughout Englishdom.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2017-06-25 21:43:51 +0000, Richard Heathfield said:

> On 25/06/17 22:36, Berkeley Brett wrote:
>> I hope you're all well & in good spirits.
>>
>> I just received a jury summons in the mail -- I am now required by
>> law to stand by to be a juror if my service is requested.
>>
>> Looking at the website of the Contra Costa County Superior Court of
>> California, I am told that I have been "summonsed" (not "summoned"):
>>
>> http://www.cc-courts.org/jury/general.aspx
>>
>> The word appears six times on the page, so it is unlikely to be a
>> typo.
>>
>> Though I have been "summonsed" many times in the past, I don't recall
>> seeing the word "summonsed" in print before, or ever having heard it
>> spoken.
>>
>> I wonder, is this a common usage throughout the English-speaking
>> world?
>>
>> Thank you for any feedback you may have....
>
> It's standard in the UK. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it was
> 'common', since summonses aren't particularly common. Most people
> manage to go years and years without being summonsed.

74, so far, in my case.

> But, when they /are/ summonsed, they are indeed summonsed, not summoned.
>
> To be summoned is to be commanded into the presence of the summoner,
> and I suspect that this may be what you mean when you say you have been
> "summonsed" many times. (Of course, I could be wrong!)
>
> But to be /summonsed/ is to be commanded to appear before a judge or a
> magistrate. That's a slightly different thing, because it has legal
> force - AFAIK you cannot legally refuse.


--

athel

[Jenny Telia]

On 26/06/2017 10:29, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2017-06-25 21:43:51 +0000, Richard Heathfield said:
>
>> On 25/06/17 22:36, Berkeley Brett wrote:
>>> I hope you're all well & in good spirits.
>>>
>>> I just received a jury summons in the mail -- I am now required by
>>> law to stand by to be a juror if my service is requested.
>>>
>>> Looking at the website of the Contra Costa County Superior Court of
>>> California, I am told that I have been "summonsed" (not "summoned"):
>>>
>>> http://www.cc-courts.org/jury/general.aspx
>>>
>>> The word appears six times on the page, so it is unlikely to be a
>>> typo.
>>>
>>> Though I have been "summonsed" many times in the past, I don't recall
>>> seeing the word "summonsed" in print before, or ever having heard it
>>> spoken.
>>>
>>> I wonder, is this a common usage throughout the English-speaking
>>> world?
>>>
>>> Thank you for any feedback you may have....
>>
>> It's standard in the UK. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it was
>> 'common', since summonses aren't particularly common. Most people
>> manage to go years and years without being summonsed.
>
> 74, so far, in my case.
>

74 sounds like a high number. Given that you need to be of legal age
(21?) before you are summonsed, it appears you are summonsed more than
once a year, on average!?

Is it for jury service or those unpaid parking tickets? You should do
something about those you know.

[charles]

In article <oiqub7$e21$1...@dont-email.me>,

I interpret his 74 as years without being called.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

[Peter T. Daniels]

That would make him 95, then? That might excuse his frequent mental lapses and
also his constant recurrences to imagined slights from years ago.

[occam]

No, to be fair, it was my mental lapse - or failure to read the last
sentence of the preceding mail. 'My bad' as they say.

[Tony Cooper]

Well, if you are 74 years-old, you have not been summonsed for 74
years. In some of those years you were not eligible to be summonsed,
but - nonetheless - you didn't receive a summons.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

No! 74 is the number of years and years that I have not been summonsed
(but you realized that).

>
> Is it for jury service or those unpaid parking tickets? You should do
> something about those you know.

I'm not eligible for jury service. They're not too fussy about illegal
parking in Marseilles, and they tow cars away rather than issue
tickets. The only time I was towed away the police officer supervising
the tow lorry was incredibly apologetic when he realized I was a poor
ignorant foreigner who'd only been in the country for a few months*.
Too late to cancel the fine, but he did ask the tow lorry driver to
give me a lift to the pound, and the man in charge of the pound allowed
me to drive away without paying for the tow, just on the promise that I
would come back. British people have a reputation for being strictly
honest in this part of the world. Maybe not football hooligans, but I
don't look much like a football hooligan.

*They don't seem to know about the precept "Ignorance of the Law is No
Excuse" in France.


--
athel

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2017-06-26 16:31:38 +0200, occam <oc...@127.0.0.1> said:

> On 26/06/2017 15:16, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 8:38:58 AM UTC-4, charles wrote:
>>> In article <oiqub7$e21$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>> Jenny Telia <jnyt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 26/06/2017 10:29, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>>> On 2017-06-25 21:43:51 +0000, Richard Heathfield said:
>>
>>>>>> It's standard in the UK. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it was
>>>>>> 'common', since summonses aren't particularly common. Most people
>>>>>> manage to go years and years without being summonsed.
>>>>> 74, so far, in my case.
>>>> 74 sounds like a high number. Given that you need to be of legal age
>>>> (21?) before you are summonsed, it appears you are summonsed more than
>>>> once a year, on average!?
>>>> Is it for jury service or those unpaid parking tickets? You should do
>>>> something about those you know.
>>>
>>> I interpret his 74 as years without being called.
>>
>> That would make him 95, then? That might excuse his frequent mental lapses and
>> also his constant recurrences to imagined slights from years ago.

Pot. Kettle.

>>
>
> No, to be fair, it was my mental lapse - or failure to read the last
> sentence of the preceding mail. 'My bad' as they say.

--
athel

[Lanarcam]

Le 26/06/2017 à 16:59, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>
> *They don't seem to know about the precept "Ignorance of the Law is No
> Excuse" in France.
>

We know about: "Nul n'est censé ignorer la loi".

[Tony Cooper]

If you ever come to Orlando, don't expect the same courtesy here. If
your vehicle is towed, you will have to pay the tow fee in cash -
checks and credit cards not accepted - and you'll have to produce the
registration document for the vehicle and proof that you are the
registered owner.

My son's vehicle was towed years ago for illegal parking when he
attended a music event, and he managed to get the towing cost in cash
by borrowing from friends. He'd hoped to handle the incident without
bringing it to my attention.

However, the vehicle was registered in my name so I had to go to the
tow yard to get it out.

Access to cash on weekends is easier now with ATMs and cash back from
debit cards, but back-when people often had to wait until Monday to
get cash from the bank to pay the fee. If the vehicle was towed on
Friday night, this meant the fee increased by two days of storage
costs.

[charles]

In article <fcd35948-ba65-4444...@googlegroups.com>, Peter

It just makes him older than 74. it depends where he puts his (numeric)
origin.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

In theory, perhaps, and in Strasbourg (to take a city as different from
Marseilles as there is), maybe in practice.

--
athel

[Mack A. Damia]

I still have my PA driver's license, and that's how potential jurors
are selected for duty in Pennsylvania. I am three-thousand miles away.

I received a letter a long time ago, and I replied (online, I believe)
that I was unable to serve because of medical reasons. I never heard
another word up until 2014 when I received another notice.

I believe I may have telephoned them and sent them a letter, but a few
weeks later, I got a letter from them permanently excusing me from
jury duty.

[Richard Yates]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:54:29 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

One quibble: the original sentence did not say just that he had not
received a summons. It said that he had "managed to go years and years
without being summonsed".

Either, "Managed to go for years" suggests ongoing evasion of it,
however mild, or, if ironic, its meaning encompasses the understanding
that he was not at risk before reaching the required age.

So I would say that he never was summonsed in 74 years, but managed to
avoid being summonsed 53 years.

[bebe...@aol.com]

Did you live up to your reputation in this case?

> Maybe not football hooligans, but I
> don't look much like a football hooligan.
>
> *They don't seem to know about the precept "Ignorance of the Law is No
> Excuse" in France.

How about "Nul n'est censé ignorer la loi", then?

>
>
> --
> athel

[Lanarcam]

Believe that at your own peril ;)

They say on the many web pages on that, that this is impossible
for any citizen but that it is at the same time inevitable if
you want the law to be applied.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Only if the summonsers might have mistakenly summonsed someone under 21 -- is
that known to happen?

[bebe...@aol.com]

The French word "sommation" is derived from this and means "order". In
some cases, I believe, "summons" can just mean "order" (vs "order to
appear"), as in "summons to pay", where it is a direct equivalent of
"sommation de payer".

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Oh dear. Another PTD-wannabe. I'm surprised at you.


--
athel

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

In theory all that applies here, but they are more relaxed about
applying the full force of the law.

However, I know it works differently in God's own country. My daughter
took us to do some shopping in the People's Republic of Boulder. We got
back to her car about 30 seconds after the parking fee ran out, and she
already had a ticket. It cost her about $110, as I recall.

>
> My son's vehicle was towed years ago for illegal parking when he
> attended a music event, and he managed to get the towing cost in cash
> by borrowing from friends. He'd hoped to handle the incident without
> bringing it to my attention.
>
> However, the vehicle was registered in my name so I had to go to the
> tow yard to get it out.
>
> Access to cash on weekends is easier now with ATMs and cash back from
> debit cards, but back-when people often had to wait until Monday to
> get cash from the bank to pay the fee. If the vehicle was towed on
> Friday night, this meant the fee increased by two days of storage
> costs.


--

athel

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2017-06-26 16:06:53 +0000, bebe...@aol.com said:

> [ ... ]

>> I'm not eligible for jury service. They're not too fussy about illegal>
>> parking in Marseilles, and they tow cars away rather than issue>
>> tickets. The only time I was towed away the police officer supervising>
>> the tow lorry was incredibly apologetic when he realized I was a poor>
>> ignorant foreigner who'd only been in the country for a few months*.
>> Too late to cancel the fine, but he did ask the tow lorry driver to>
>> give me a lift to the pound, and the man in charge of the pound
>> allowed> me to drive away without paying for the tow, just on the
>> promise that I> would come back. British people have a reputation for
>> being strictly> honest in this part of the world.
>
> Did you live up to your reputation in this case?

Yes, but they had my licence number, so they could have put the police
on my trail if I had scarpered.


--
athel

[Jerry Friedman]

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 3:43:54 PM UTC-6, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 25/06/17 22:36, Berkeley Brett wrote:
> > I hope you're all well & in good spirits.
> >
> > I just received a jury summons in the mail -- I am now required by
> > law to stand by to be a juror if my service is requested.
> >
> > Looking at the website of the Contra Costa County Superior Court of
> > California, I am told that I have been "summonsed" (not "summoned"):
> >
> > http://www.cc-courts.org/jury/general.aspx
> >
> > The word appears six times on the page, so it is unlikely to be a
> > typo.
> >
> > Though I have been "summonsed" many times in the past, I don't recall
> > seeing the word "summonsed" in print before, or ever having heard it
> > spoken.
> >
> > I wonder, is this a common usage throughout the English-speaking
> > world?
> >
> > Thank you for any feedback you may have....
>
> It's standard in the UK.

I'm surprised to see it in the U.S.

> I wouldn't go so far as to say that it was
> 'common', since summonses aren't particularly common. Most people manage

> to go years and years without being summonsed. But, when they /are/

> summonsed, they are indeed summonsed, not summoned.
>
> To be summoned is to be commanded into the presence of the summoner, and
> I suspect that this may be what you mean when you say you have been
> "summonsed" many times. (Of course, I could be wrong!)
>
> But to be /summonsed/ is to be commanded to appear before a judge or a
> magistrate. That's a slightly different thing, because it has legal
> force - AFAIK you cannot legally refuse.

Do you have to be given a written summons? Say in history someone was
commanded orally, through a messenger, to appear before a king and
could not legally refuse. Would you say the person was summoned or
summonsed?

--
Jerry Friedman

[bebe...@aol.com]

"Summoned", IMHO, as "summons" is short for "writ of summons" and
"summons" as a verb seems to be a back-formation thereof.

>
> --
> Jerry Friedman

[Richard Heathfield]

On 26/06/17 18:25, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 3:43:54 PM UTC-6, Richard Heathfield wrote:

<snip>

>>
>> To be summoned is to be commanded into the presence of the summoner, and
>> I suspect that this may be what you mean when you say you have been
>> "summonsed" many times. (Of course, I could be wrong!)
>>
>> But to be /summonsed/ is to be commanded to appear before a judge or a
>> magistrate. That's a slightly different thing, because it has legal
>> force - AFAIK you cannot legally refuse.
>
> Do you have to be given a written summons?

I believe so, yes - a "writ" if I am not mistaken.

> Say in history someone was
> commanded orally, through a messenger, to appear before a king and
> could not legally refuse. Would you say the person was summoned or
> summonsed?

No, probably not. Sorry. You'll have to ask a historian!

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Janet]

In article <bc6af993-1876-4cbf...@googlegroups.com>,
bebe...@aol.com says...

> >
> > Do you have to be given a written summons?

In court /police matters, yes.

Say in history someone was
> > commanded orally, through a messenger, to appear before a king and
> > could not legally refuse. Would you say the person was summoned or
> > summonsed?

Summoned. The Queen still summons the PM, etc.

Janet

[Janet]

In article <f2c825f1-530e-4f39...@googlegroups.com>,
gram...@verizon.net says...

Yes. The minimum UK age for jury service is 18; but younger people
can receive a court summons for criminal offences or to appear as a
witness.

Janet.

[Horace LaBadie]

In article <f2c825f1-530e-4f39...@googlegroups.com>,

In Massachusetts it happened to this kid -- twice. Evidently, eighteen
is the minimum age there. Clerical error.

<http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/9-year-old-called-for-jury
-duty-for-second-time/>

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 19:19:27 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

>However, I know it works differently in God's own country. My daughter
>took us to do some shopping in the People's Republic of Boulder. We got
>back to her car about 30 seconds after the parking fee ran out, and she
>already had a ticket. It cost her about $110, as I recall.
>>

For a meter violation?

That ticket would have cost your daughter $22 in Orlando. Add $15 if
you don't pay it within the number of days allowed.

The city is experimenting with some new meters that don't show the
amount of time remaining on what has been paid. You may find a
parking place with 20 minutes left from previous parker's payment, but
you won't know there's 20 minutes left. So, you have to pay for the
amount of time you expect to occupy the space.

In looking up the current amount, I found an article that reveals that
*each* parking space on Pine Street in downtown Orlando produces
$6,700 in annual ticket revenue to the city.

[Tony Cooper]

That is nastier than anything Rey has ever called me.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

OK. Consider it unsaid. But remember Grice's maxims!


--
athel

[Peter T. Daniels]

The "summation" is what the attorney for each side addresses the jury with as a
case is drawing to a close. Other than, presumably, in mathematics, it doesn't
have any other usual uses.

[Mark Brader]

Tony Cooper:
> That [parking] ticket would have cost your daughter $22 in Orlando...

>
> The city is experimenting with some new meters that don't show the
> amount of time remaining on what has been paid. You may find a
> parking place with 20 minutes left from previous parker's payment, but
> you won't know there's 20 minutes left.

But they do show when the time paid for has expired, so if you want to
gamble that there are 20 minutes left, you have the possibility of winning?

> So, you have to pay for the
> amount of time you expect to occupy the space.

Traditional parking meters were replaced here, maybe 10-20 years ago,
with the ticket system, called "pay and display" in some places.
I don't actually know what they're called here. When you park during
payable hours, you're expected to find the nearest machine, pay for
the amount of time you will occupy the space for, receive a printed
receipt, and leave it on your dashboard to be checked.

> In looking up the current amount, I found an article that reveals that
> *each* parking space on Pine Street in downtown Orlando produces
> $6,700 in annual ticket revenue to the city.

How does that compare to the annual revenue in parking-meter fees?
I have no idea how much the meters charge or how many chargeable
hours there are in the week.

In Toronto some time ago, maybe at the same time they changed the meters,
they decided to increase revenue by lengthening the chargeable hours.
I'm sure this caught quite a few people who didn't think they had to
read the signs to see if they had to pay to park on Sunday or in the
evening, but I don't know how the ticket revenue compared to the
"parking-meter" revenue.
--
Mark Brader | "Fortunately, [this newsgroup] contains one of the world's
Toronto | largest herds of free-roaming pedants, thundering majestically
m...@vex.net | across the virtual plains..." -- Michael Wojcik

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Charles Bishop]

In article <erclk9...@mid.individual.net>,

Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On 2017-06-26 14:26:39 +0200, Jenny Telia <jnyt...@gmail.com> said:
>

> > On 26/06/2017 10:29, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >> On 2017-06-25 21:43:51 +0000, Richard Heathfield said:
> >>

> >>> On 25/06/17 22:36, Berkeley Brett wrote:
> >>>> I hope you're all well & in good spirits.
> >>>>
> >>>> I just received a jury summons in the mail -- I am now required by
> >>>> law to stand by to be a juror if my service is requested.
> >>>>
> >>>> Looking at the website of the Contra Costa County Superior Court of
> >>>> California, I am told that I have been "summonsed" (not "summoned"):
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.cc-courts.org/jury/general.aspx
> >>>>
> >>>> The word appears six times on the page, so it is unlikely to be a
> >>>> typo.
> >>>>
> >>>> Though I have been "summonsed" many times in the past, I don't recall
> >>>> seeing the word "summonsed" in print before, or ever having heard it
> >>>> spoken.
> >>>>
> >>>> I wonder, is this a common usage throughout the English-speaking
> >>>> world?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you for any feedback you may have....
> >>>

> >>> It's standard in the UK. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it was
> >>> 'common', since summonses aren't particularly common. Most people
> >>> manage to go years and years without being summonsed.
> >>
> >> 74, so far, in my case.
> >>
> >
> > 74 sounds like a high number. Given that you need to be of legal age
> > (21?) before you are summonsed, it appears you are summonsed more than
> > once a year, on average!?
>

> No! 74 is the number of years and years that I have not been summonsed
> (but you realized that).

While that is true, can you really count the first 21, or 18?

> >
> > Is it for jury service or those unpaid parking tickets? You should do
> > something about those you know.
>

> I'm not eligible for jury service. They're not too fussy about illegal
> parking in Marseilles, and they tow cars away rather than issue
> tickets. The only time I was towed away the police officer supervising
> the tow lorry was incredibly apologetic when he realized I was a poor
> ignorant foreigner who'd only been in the country for a few months*.
> Too late to cancel the fine, but he did ask the tow lorry driver to
> give me a lift to the pound, and the man in charge of the pound allowed
> me to drive away without paying for the tow, just on the promise that I
> would come back. British people have a reputation for being strictly

> honest in this part of the world. Maybe not football hooligans, but I
> don't look much like a football hooligan.

Moving from LA to SF, it took much longer than one would expect for a
reasonably intelligent person to realize that one could /not/ park on a
street without checking for parking rules and regulations. I probably
spent several hundred dollars before I got schmart. Even so, the first
thing one does when approaching one's vehicle is to check under the
windshield wiper for bits of paper.

--
charles, parking enforcement officers eat their young

[Charles Bishop]

In article <ercu0v...@mid.individual.net>,

Are you saying that the traffic officer put an advanced time on the
ticket, assuming that you wouldn't be back to see that you had a ticket
and time on the meter? I can easily believe it.

[snip]

--
charles, cowed

[Lewis]

In message <eac5cec2-e454-41b6...@googlegroups.com> Berkeley Brett <roya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I hope you're all well & in good spirits.

> I just received a jury summons in the mail -- I am now required by law to stand by to be a juror if my service is requested.

> Looking at the website of the Contra Costa County Superior Court of California, I am told that I have been "summonsed" (not "summoned"):

Yes.

> http://www.cc-courts.org/jury/general.aspx

> The word appears six times on the page, so it is unlikely to be a typo.

No, it is not.

> Though I have been "summonsed" many times in the past, I don't recall seeing the word "summonsed" in print before, or ever having heard it spoken.

I've never heard it spoken, or if I have it was pronounced "summoned" in
error, but it is a word that means "issued (or served) with a summons)".

> I wonder, is this a common usage throughout the English-speaking world?

I can't say what ours say since I don't read them, I just check the date
I need to call in to see if I actually have to appear, but the document
is called a Jury Summons. Once, several years ago our mailbox had two
summonses in it.

--
In other news, Gandalf died. -- Secret Diary of Boromir

[Charles Bishop]

In article <6ml2lc9fkgt5201vi...@4ax.com>,

People have been arrested for feeding the meters of strangers so they
won't get a ticket.

Some meters reset to zero when they sense the car has been moved out of
the spot.

--
charles

[Lewis]

In message <6ml2lc9fkgt5201vi...@4ax.com> Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 19:19:27 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

>>However, I know it works differently in God's own country. My daughter
>>took us to do some shopping in the People's Republic of Boulder. We got
>>back to her car about 30 seconds after the parking fee ran out, and she
>>already had a ticket. It cost her about $110, as I recall.
>>>

> For a meter violation?

Yes, and there are worse places than Boulder. As I recall, the parking
tickets for being over time in Carmel-by-the-sea were in the neighborhood
of $200 when I was there in the mid 1990s. There are no meters, they
have 2 hour parking on the street. By the time the 2:00:00.01 time
hits, the ticket is already on your car. Sometimes you will get a
ticket after 90 minutes because what are you going to do about it? This
is especially true for rental cars and cars with out of state plates.

> That ticket would have cost your daughter $22 in Orlando. Add $15 if
> you don't pay it within the number of days allowed.

Tickets in Denver used to be $15, but the parking lot owners bribed some
city council members to increase it to $25 and double if there is a
sportsball event (or something like that) so they could jack up their
rates.

> The city is experimenting with some new meters that don't show the
> amount of time remaining on what has been paid. You may find a
> parking place with 20 minutes left from previous parker's payment, but
> you won't know there's 20 minutes left. So, you have to pay for the
> amount of time you expect to occupy the space.

There are meter that reset the time to 0 whenever the car leaves, but
I'm not sure where those are.

I rarely park at meters.

> In looking up the current amount, I found an article that reveals that
> *each* parking space on Pine Street in downtown Orlando produces
> $6,700 in annual ticket revenue to the city.

I can't even find the pages for Denver and various suburbs that say what
the fines are. I think they are trying to keep it a secret.

A long time ago I knew someone who routinely put quarters with a bad of
superglue on them into meter, jamming them. Sometimes I recall that with
a degree of fondness, but mostly he was an asshole.

--
IT DOES NOT SUCK TO BE YOU Bart chalkboard Ep. AABF13

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 15:00:00 -0500, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

>Tony Cooper:
>> That [parking] ticket would have cost your daughter $22 in Orlando...
>>
>> The city is experimenting with some new meters that don't show the
>> amount of time remaining on what has been paid. You may find a
>> parking place with 20 minutes left from previous parker's payment, but
>> you won't know there's 20 minutes left.
>
>But they do show when the time paid for has expired, so if you want to
>gamble that there are 20 minutes left, you have the possibility of winning?
>
>> So, you have to pay for the
>> amount of time you expect to occupy the space.
>
>Traditional parking meters were replaced here, maybe 10-20 years ago,
>with the ticket system, called "pay and display" in some places.
>I don't actually know what they're called here. When you park during
>payable hours, you're expected to find the nearest machine, pay for
>the amount of time you will occupy the space for, receive a printed
>receipt, and leave it on your dashboard to be checked.

That's done here, too. Interstate 4 cuts through the downtown area of
Orlando, and the Interstate is elevated. Under the Interstate is
parking, and it's all pay and display.

The streets in the Savannah GA tourist area also have pay and display
parking. Last time I was there, the driver of the car I waiting for
to pull out of a parking space jumped out his car, walked back to my
car, and handed me his pay and display card with an hour left on it.

Whitby, UK, also used the system. More than six months after our
trip, the rental car company sent me an invoice for a pay and display
fine that I had not paid. The amount was in US dollars.

>> In looking up the current amount, I found an article that reveals that
>> *each* parking space on Pine Street in downtown Orlando produces
>> $6,700 in annual ticket revenue to the city.
>
>How does that compare to the annual revenue in parking-meter fees?

The article doesn't provide that figure, but the city's annual budget
for the parking division is $14 million, and the article says that
this is offset by meter income and fines. It adds that $2.1 million
was received in fines during the year.

[Lewis]

In message <y6CdnavHZqBd-szE...@giganews.com> Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:
> Tony Cooper:
>> That [parking] ticket would have cost your daughter $22 in Orlando...
>>
>> The city is experimenting with some new meters that don't show the
>> amount of time remaining on what has been paid. You may find a
>> parking place with 20 minutes left from previous parker's payment, but
>> you won't know there's 20 minutes left.

> But they do show when the time paid for has expired, so if you want to
> gamble that there are 20 minutes left, you have the possibility of winning?

>> So, you have to pay for the
>> amount of time you expect to occupy the space.

> Traditional parking meters were replaced here, maybe 10-20 years ago,
> with the ticket system, called "pay and display" in some places.
> I don't actually know what they're called here. When you park during
> payable hours, you're expected to find the nearest machine, pay for
> the amount of time you will occupy the space for, receive a printed
> receipt, and leave it on your dashboard to be checked.

Boulder (And Vancouver) have a much better system. You go to a central
kiosk to pay, or you use an app on your phone. That's it, you're done.

You have to enter your plate number, but there's no going back to the
car.

In Vancouver the app warns you when the time is expiring so you can
easily get back to your car. I don't know if they did that in Boulder
since I paid up to the end of the metered period.

>> In looking up the current amount, I found an article that reveals that
>> *each* parking space on Pine Street in downtown Orlando produces
>> $6,700 in annual ticket revenue to the city.

> How does that compare to the annual revenue in parking-meter fees?

Parking meters don't make any money, they make it all on tickets.

I know that a few years ago in Denver the meter revenue didn't cover the
cost of collecting the money. That's changed now with meters that take
credit cards and slightly higher rates, but it's still a close thing.

> I have no idea how much the meters charge or how many chargeable
> hours there are in the week.

Most meters here are $1/hr (15 min per quarter) and will run from
10am-6pm. Some will run as long as 8am to 10pm. Even if the space is
covered for 14 hours (by at least 7 different cars), that's only $14 a
day. Most meters are not full all the time.

> In Toronto some time ago, maybe at the same time they changed the meters,
> they decided to increase revenue by lengthening the chargeable hours.
> I'm sure this caught quite a few people who didn't think they had to
> read the signs to see if they had to pay to park on Sunday or in the
> evening, but I don't know how the ticket revenue compared to the
> "parking-meter" revenue.

I could check with my city councilwoman, but I think when I was at a
meeting a few years ago about the parking meters outside the office
building my servers are in someone said it was 30:1 tickets to meter
revenue, but some meters then where still 25¢ and hour, and those are
all gone now, I think.

Overstaying a 25¢ meter could cost you a $25 ticket, so that right there
would be 100:1.

--
If women wear a pair of pants, a pair of glasses, and a pair of
earrings, why don't they wear a pair of bras?

[Lewis]

Orally? Summoned. He was summoned, he didn't receive a summons.


--
Carlin's Third Commandment: Thou shall keep thy religion to thyself.

[Charles Bishop]

In article <erctoc...@mid.individual.net>,

Well, no, as to the wannabe accusation. Tony explained why you were
right, that you hadn't been summonsed for 74 years. In a post just
preceding this one, I made the same point and wouldn't expect to be
called an insulting name either.

You were correct, Tony was correct, I'm correct, let's call the whole
thing off.

--
charles

[Lewis]

The tickets for parking will simply have a time the ticket was issued.
You have no proof that you were or were not over the allotted time, so
you're basically screwed. The judge is getting paid by the city that is
issuing the tickets, so even if you argued it, nothing would happen
except you'd have to pay a larger fine and waste your time.

--
My real name is Fat Patricia

[Mark Brader]

Tony Cooper:

>>> In looking up the current amount, I found an article that reveals that
>>> *each* parking space on Pine Street in downtown Orlando produces
>>> $6,700 in annual ticket revenue to the city.

Mark Brader:

>> How does that compare to the annual revenue in parking-meter fees?

Tony Cooper:

> The article doesn't provide that figure, but the city's annual budget
> for the parking division is $14 million, and the article says that
> this is offset by meter income and fines. It adds that $2.1 million
> was received in fines during the year.

Well, that's something. But by way of estimating the number I asked
about, could you tell us the rate per hour and the number of hours per
week that the Pine St. meters operate?
--
Mark Brader "One doesn't have to be a grammarian
Toronto to know when someone's talking balls."
m...@vex.net --John Masters

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 17:45:17 -0500, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

>Tony Cooper:
>>>> In looking up the current amount, I found an article that reveals that
>>>> *each* parking space on Pine Street in downtown Orlando produces
>>>> $6,700 in annual ticket revenue to the city.
>
>Mark Brader:
>>> How does that compare to the annual revenue in parking-meter fees?
>
>Tony Cooper:
>> The article doesn't provide that figure, but the city's annual budget
>> for the parking division is $14 million, and the article says that
>> this is offset by meter income and fines. It adds that $2.1 million
>> was received in fines during the year.
>
>Well, that's something. But by way of estimating the number I asked
>about, could you tell us the rate per hour and the number of hours per
>week that the Pine St. meters operate?

Meters are enforced on Monday-Saturday from 8 AM to 6 PM. Free
parking on holidays. Rates are $1.00 per hour.

However, budget and the fines income include city parking lots and
garages, and their charges vary from $1.00 to $2.00 per hour with a
$15. daily max. Additionally, there is "Event Parking" at $10 when
there is an event at the one of the downtown venues for sports and
arts. A Orlando Magic basketball game is an event, and a play at Bob
Carr Theater is an event. Every weekend is an "event" at Lake Eola
(park) where there is a farmer's market.

All this from web-based sites.

Pine Street is a fairly short street in the downtown area. I'd have
to go down there to get an understanding of why Pine is any different
than any one of the other downtown streets. There must be some reason
that Pine is the most productive street for parking fines.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 12:15:51 PM UTC-6, Janet wrote:
> In article <bc6af993-1876-4cbf...@googlegroups.com>,
> bebe...@aol.com says...
> > >
> > > Do you have to be given a written summons?
>
> In court /police matters, yes.

I meant for the verb "summons" to apply.

> Say in history someone was
> > > commanded orally, through a messenger, to appear before a king and
> > > could not legally refuse. Would you say the person was summoned or
> > > summonsed?
>
> Summoned. The Queen still summons the PM, etc.

Thanks. I dare not even ask what would happen if the PM refused.

--
Jerry Friedman
"Shall I dog his morning progress o’er the track-betraying dew?
Demand his dinner-basket into which my pheasant flew?
Confiscate his evening faggot under which the conies ran,
And summons him to judgment? I would sooner summons Pan."

[Mack A. Damia]

The Queen’s prerogative powers vary greatly and fall into a plethora
of long definitions and practices. Here’s the condensed version:

Political power…

Summoning/suspending parliament: The Queen has the power to suspend
and summon the elected parliament.

Declaring war: She can declare war against another country, but
really, nowadays, this falls on the ruling prime minister, who can
exercise the royal prerogative without council from the government of
the day.

Appointing the elected prime minister: The Queen is responsible for
appointing the prime minister after a general election or resignation.
She does this by choosing the candidate with the most support from the
House of Commons. If a prime minister resigns, she will seek advice
before naming a successor. If she does it without advice, uproar would
ensue.

The issue and control of passports: Issuing and withdrawing passports
falls under the royal prerogative, which means every British passport
being issued in the Queen’s name. This power is used by ministers on
behalf of Her Majesty. Oh, and because of this the Queen herself, does
not need a passport.

The monarch is above the law: As Queen, Elizabeth II cannot be
prosecuted as the law is carried out in her name.

Appoint/remove ministers : Her Majesty has the power to appoint and
remove ministers representing the Crown (i.e. her).

Royal assent: It is the Queen’s responsibility to the nation and her
peoples to approve bills from parliament by signing them into law. She
can also refuse a bill if she believes it will harm the country.


Military power…

Head of the armed forces: The Queen is head of the British armed
forces – all that join the military must swear an oath of allegiance
to her.

Commissioning officers: Elizabeth II can commission officers into the
armed forces and also remove them.


Honours…

Peerages: The Queen may create a life or hereditary peerage for
anyone. All honours are given under the authority of the Crown.
Because of this, the Queen has the last word on all knighthoods,
peerages etc.

https://theculturetrip.com/europe/united-kingdom/england/london/articles/this-is-how-much-power-the-queen-really-has/

[Jerry Friedman]

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 11:54:06 AM UTC-6, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 26/06/17 18:25, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 3:43:54 PM UTC-6, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> <snip>
> >>
> >> To be summoned is to be commanded into the presence of the summoner, and
> >> I suspect that this may be what you mean when you say you have been
> >> "summonsed" many times. (Of course, I could be wrong!)
> >>
> >> But to be /summonsed/ is to be commanded to appear before a judge or a
> >> magistrate. That's a slightly different thing, because it has legal
> >> force - AFAIK you cannot legally refuse.
> >
> > Do you have to be given a written summons?
>
> I believe so, yes - a "writ" if I am not mistaken.
>
> > Say in history someone was
> > commanded orally, through a messenger, to appear before a king and
> > could not legally refuse. Would you say the person was summoned or
> > summonsed?
>
> No, probably not. Sorry. You'll have to ask a historian!

Come to think of it, I could also look at translations of the Bible.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Richard Heathfield]

On 26/06/17 22:28, Charles Bishop wrote:
<snip>

> Moving from LA to SF, it took much longer than one would expect for a
> reasonably intelligent person to realize that one could /not/ park on a
> street without checking for parking rules and regulations.

In the UK, too, it's always wise to check local parking rules when parking.

In all my many years of driving, I have only ever received a parking
penalty *once* - and I (correctly) complained, and had the penalty quashed.

If you don't want parking tickets, the solution is simple: park legally.

> I probably
> spent several hundred dollars before I got schmart. Even so, the first
> thing one does when approaching one's vehicle is to check under the
> windshield wiper for bits of paper.

I once read of a guy who was schmarter (but less honest) than you. He
would steal a penalty ticket from underneath someone else's wipers and
insert them under his own.

The psychology was simple: an enforcement officer probably wouldn't
issue a ticket for a car if he (or she, or it) could already see a
ticket under the wiper.

When the guy got back to his car, if the original car was still there he
would return the ticket; otherwise he would just bin it.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 26/06/17 22:32, Charles Bishop wrote:
> People have been arrested for feeding the meters of strangers so they
> won't get a ticket.

How can that possibly be illegal?

[Robert Bannister]

On 27/6/17 8:01 am, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 19:15:47 +0100, Janet <nob...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <bc6af993-1876-4cbf...@googlegroups.com>,
>> bebe...@aol.com says...
>>>>
>>>> Do you have to be given a written summons?
>>
>> In court /police matters, yes.
>>
>> Say in history someone was
>>>> commanded orally, through a messenger, to appear before a king and
>>>> could not legally refuse. Would you say the person was summoned or
>>>> summonsed?
>>
>> Summoned. The Queen still summons the PM, etc.
>
> The Queen’s prerogative powers vary greatly and fall into a plethora
> of long definitions and practices. Here’s the condensed version:
>
> Political power…

[snip]
> Military power…
[snip]
Are these her powers as Queen of Canada or as Queen of Britain &c?

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[Charles Bishop]

In article <oisbfq$9j9$2...@dont-email.me>,

Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

> On 26/06/17 22:32, Charles Bishop wrote:
> > People have been arrested for feeding the meters of strangers so they
> > won't get a ticket.
>
> How can that possibly be illegal?

It's a government regulation. Need I say more?

--
charles

[Mack A. Damia]

Queen Be

Wherever she is recognized as Head of State*

* The Governor General is her official representative.

[Tony Cooper]

Wouldn't it be a city ordinance? A city ordinance is a law that is
enforceable only with the city limits and is originated and passed by
the city officers. Usually a City Council.

Ordinances are used when there is something a city wants to control
but is not something that the state legislators want to pass because
not all cities, and the areas outside of cities, want the same law.

Parking regulations are usually city ordinances. Also zoning laws.

[Peter Moylan]

On 27/06/17 09:12, Tony Cooper wrote:

> Pine Street is a fairly short street in the downtown area. I'd have
> to go down there to get an understanding of why Pine is any different
> than any one of the other downtown streets. There must be some reason
> that Pine is the most productive street for parking fines.

I could tell you why for one short street in central Newcastle. It had
faulty meters that would take your money but then not display anything
that said that you had paid. Despite many complaints, the council did
not fix the meters for several months because the fine income was so
attractive.

In principle you could be excused from the fine if you went in person to
the council offices and reported the number of the faulty meter, with
photographic proof. (Which the council already had, of course, from the
many previous reports.) In practice, it's almost impossible to find a
parking place within walking distance of the council offices.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Mark Brader]

Tony Cooper:
>>>>> In looking up the current amount, I found an article that reveals that
>>>>> *each* parking space on Pine Street in downtown Orlando produces
>>>>> $6,700 in annual ticket revenue to the city.

Mark Brader:
>>>> How does that compare to the annual revenue in parking-meter fees?

Tony Cooper:

> Meters are enforced on Monday-Saturday from 8 AM to 6 PM. Free
> parking on holidays. Rates are $1.00 per hour.

So if there are say 10 holidays in the year, that's about
(6 + 12 - 8) * ( 365.25 * 6/7 - 10 ) = 3,030 chargeable hours per year.
At $1 per hour and allowing for the time when the space is vacant,
it sounds as though the ticket revenue is something like 3 times the
parking revenue. Interesting, thanks.

> Pine Street is a fairly short street in the downtown area. I'd have
> to go down there to get an understanding of why Pine is any different
> than any one of the other downtown streets. There must be some reason
> that Pine is the most productive street for parking fines.

Definitely no comment.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "(A topological cat is essential here.)"
m...@vex.net --Ian Stewart

[Mark Brader]

Charles Bishop:

>> People have been arrested for feeding the meters of strangers so they
>> won't get a ticket.

Richard Heathfield:

> How can that possibly be illegal?

By someone legislating it so. If you mean "why would it be", the answer
is that where parking is metered, it's typically intended that the meter
also enforces a maximum time that any one car may be parked there for.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | In the affairs of this world men are saved,
m...@vex.net | not by faith, but by the want of it. --Franklin

[Peter Moylan]

On 27/06/17 07:32, Charles Bishop wrote:

> People have been arrested for feeding the meters of strangers so they
> won't get a ticket.

Queensland's Gold Coast, whose economy is largely based on tourism, used
to employ "meter maids" who went around feeding meters that were about
to expire. Maybe they still do. This was technically illegal, but
tolerated because it made tourists happy.

It has just occurred to me to wonder: if it's the city council that gets
income from the parking meters, and it's the city council employing
those people, something doesn't add up. Perhaps it was the tourist
bureau, not the city, that employed the "meter maids".

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Misle alert! When I read that I wondered what you meant: "Oh, really?"
"O'Reilly"?

> Summoned. He was summoned, he didn't receive a summons.


--

athel

[spuorg...@gowanhill.com]

On Tuesday, 27 June 2017 02:15:00 UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> In the UK, too, it's always wise to check local parking rules when parking.

Especially in London, the rules can be different on different sides of the street, if a local council boundary runs down the middle of the street. Tickets issued by Council A's pay-and-display machines are not valid on Council B's side of the road.

Owain

[Janet]

> On 26/06/17 22:32, Charles Bishop wrote:
> > People have been arrested for feeding the meters of strangers so they
> > won't get a ticket.

How would anybody even know the meter feeder was not the driver or
passenger?

Janet

[Peter Moylan]

Different powers in different countries, I would imagine.

[Peter Moylan]

According to Etymology Online, "summons" as a verb appeared in 1650.
You'd find it only in those Bible translations that try to describe
things in terms of modern concepts.

Even then, I would expect "summoned" unless the King had issued a writ.

[Richard Heathfield]

Well, as Mark rightly pointed out to me, all it takes for it to be
illegal is for someone with legislative power to /say/ it's illegal (in
whatever way is canonical for that jurisdiction).

At that point, ignorance of the law being no defence, /the person
feeding the meter/ would know that he or she or it was not the driver or
passenger. That should be sufficient to deter law-abiding people, which
is of course most people, since most people never, ever break the law -
for example, nobody here in aue has ever broken the speed limit, right?
<cough>

A traffic warden can then be set to lurk in the area and given the legal
power to demand any meter-feeder to explain his, her, or its connection
with the vehicle.

I sometimes think that the avowed purpose of city councils is to
criminalise as many as possible of the people that voted them in.

[Mark Brader]

Charles Bishop:

>>> People have been arrested for feeding the meters of strangers so they
>>> won't get a ticket.

"Janet":

> How would anybody even know the meter feeder was not the driver or
> passenger?

The offense is about putting money in the meter other than immediately
after the car was parked, not about who did it.
--
Mark Brader "Hacking for 8 years gives a guy a memory.
Toronto If you was with a woman -- I'd've noticed."
m...@vex.net PHANTOM LADY

[Richard Heathfield]

On 27/06/17 10:38, Mark Brader wrote:
> Charles Bishop:
>>>> People have been arrested for feeding the meters of strangers so they
>>>> won't get a ticket.
>
> "Janet":
>> How would anybody even know the meter feeder was not the driver or
>> passenger?
>
> The offense is about putting money in the meter other than immediately
> after the car was parked, not about who did it.

Ah, interesting.

In the UK, it is common practice, and perfectly legal, to "feed the
meter".[1] This may explain why some of us have been a bit slow to catch on.

[1] Or, at least, it used to be. It's been some time since I've had to
use a parking meter. They aren't as common in the UK as they used to be.

[Janet]

In article <vs73lch5dn5hp9g82...@4ax.com>,
drstee...@yahoo.com says...

>
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 19:15:47 +0100, Janet <nob...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <bc6af993-1876-4cbf...@googlegroups.com>,
> >bebe...@aol.com says...
> >> >
> >> > Do you have to be given a written summons?
> >
> > In court /police matters, yes.
> >
> > Say in history someone was
> >> > commanded orally, through a messenger, to appear before a king and
> >> > could not legally refuse. Would you say the person was summoned or
> >> > summonsed?
> >
> > Summoned. The Queen still summons the PM, etc.
>

> The Queen?s prerogative powers vary greatly and fall into a plethora
> of long definitions and practices. Here?s the condensed version:
>
> Political power?

>
> Summoning/suspending parliament: The Queen has the power to suspend
> and summon the elected parliament.

Not since the Fixed term Parliament Act , 2011, removed that
prerogative.

> Declaring war: She can declare war against another country,

Nope. That prerogative belongs to the Crown, (the Govt) not the
Monarch.

> Appointing the elected prime minister: The Queen is responsible for
> appointing the prime minister after a general election or resignation.
> She does this by choosing the candidate with the most support from the
> House of Commons.

She does not "choose" the candidate.
She appoints the candidate chosen by the party in power.

> The issue and control of passports: Issuing and withdrawing passports
> falls under the royal prerogative, which means every British passport

> being issued in the Queen?s name.

Again, this is a Royal Prerogative excercised by the Govt, not the
Queen.

Janet

[charles]

In article <oit9kk$mvv$1...@dont-email.me>,

Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> On 27/06/17 10:38, Mark Brader wrote:
> > Charles Bishop:
> >>>> People have been arrested for feeding the meters of strangers so they
> >>>> won't get a ticket.
> >
> > "Janet":
> >> How would anybody even know the meter feeder was not the driver or
> >> passenger?
> >
> > The offense is about putting money in the meter other than immediately
> > after the car was parked, not about who did it.

> Ah, interesting.

> In the UK, it is comMon practice, and perfectly legal, to "feed the

> meter".[1] This may explain why some of us have been a bit slow to catch
> on.

> [1] Or, at least, it used to be. It's been some time since I've had to
> use a parking meter. They aren't as common in the UK as they used to be.

It varies from place to place. Generally it's illegal. Nowadays most places
uses ticket machines anyway, which prevents such practice.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

[Richard Heathfield]

On 27/06/17 11:14, charles wrote:
> In article <oit9kk$mvv$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 27/06/17 10:38, Mark Brader wrote:
>>> Charles Bishop:
>>>>>> People have been arrested for feeding the meters of strangers so they
>>>>>> won't get a ticket.
>>>
>>> "Janet":
>>>> How would anybody even know the meter feeder was not the driver or
>>>> passenger?
>>>
>>> The offense is about putting money in the meter other than immediately
>>> after the car was parked, not about who did it.
>
>> Ah, interesting.
>
>> In the UK, it is comMon

That, Charles, was an interesting edit! What happened?

>> practice, and perfectly legal, to "feed the
>> meter".[1] This may explain why some of us have been a bit slow to catch
>> on.
>
>> [1] Or, at least, it used to be. It's been some time since I've had to
>> use a parking meter. They aren't as common in the UK as they used to be.
>
> It varies from place to place. Generally it's illegal. Nowadays most places
> uses ticket machines anyway, which prevents such practice.

In the UK at least, the better machines render the practice completely
unnecessary, because they charge you *on your return*. You get a ticket
on arrival, you insert it on return, and the machine tells you how much
you have to pay. You then check that the machine has performed the
calculation correctly. If so, you pay. If not, you still pay, but you
keep the receipt and then you raise a stink later. And, being British,
you make sure it's a polite stink.

[Janet]

In article <gbWdnaeIJbYSus_E...@giganews.com>, m...@vex.net
says...

>
> Charles Bishop:
> >>> People have been arrested for feeding the meters of strangers so they
> >>> won't get a ticket.
>
> "Janet":
> > How would anybody even know the meter feeder was not the driver or
> > passenger?
>
> The offense is about putting money in the meter other than immediately
> after the car was parked, not about who did it.

Eh? It's not rare here for s driver to come back and feed the meter to
extend their legal parking.

Janet

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 11:02:25 +0100, Janet <nob...@home.com> wrote:

>In article <vs73lch5dn5hp9g82...@4ax.com>,
>drstee...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>> On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 19:15:47 +0100, Janet <nob...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <bc6af993-1876-4cbf...@googlegroups.com>,
>> >bebe...@aol.com says...
>> >> >
>> >> > Do you have to be given a written summons?
>> >
>> > In court /police matters, yes.
>> >
>> > Say in history someone was
>> >> > commanded orally, through a messenger, to appear before a king and
>> >> > could not legally refuse. Would you say the person was summoned or
>> >> > summonsed?
>> >
>> > Summoned. The Queen still summons the PM, etc.

When the Queen summons the leader of a party to invite her/him to form a
government that will follow a behind-the-scenes exchange of messages
between the leader and the Queen's personal advisors. The leader will
have said something like "I am ready to be asked to form a government".
The Queen's people then agree a date and time. The party leader is then
formally summoned to a meeting with the Queen. The Queen asks the simple
question "Can you form a government?". The reply is then some form of
"Yes".

This is based on the underlying principle that in this constitutional
monarchy the Monarch acts on the advice of her/his ministers. There is a
variously worded saying one version of which is "The monarch reigns but
does not rule". Sometimes added to that is "The government rules but
does not reign".

The position of the monarch is outlined in this information for
"sixth-formers", school kids (typically aged 16 to 18) in the top few
years of high school:
http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod2/2_2_1_legislation/03_leg_the_crown.htm

That is the background to Janet's explanations below.

>> The Queen?s prerogative powers vary greatly and fall into a plethora
>> of long definitions and practices. Here?s the condensed version:
>>
>> Political power?
>>
>> Summoning/suspending parliament: The Queen has the power to suspend
>> and summon the elected parliament.
>
> Not since the Fixed term Parliament Act , 2011, removed that
>prerogative.
>
>> Declaring war: She can declare war against another country,
>
> Nope. That prerogative belongs to the Crown, (the Govt) not the
>Monarch.
>
>> Appointing the elected prime minister: The Queen is responsible for
>> appointing the prime minister after a general election or resignation.
>> She does this by choosing the candidate with the most support from the
>> House of Commons.
>
> She does not "choose" the candidate.
> She appoints the candidate chosen by the party in power.
>
>
>> The issue and control of passports: Issuing and withdrawing passports
>> falls under the royal prerogative, which means every British passport
>> being issued in the Queen?s name.
>
> Again, this is a Royal Prerogative excercised by the Govt, not the
>Queen.
>
> Janet

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Peter T. Daniels]

In New York, Chicago, and Jersey City, the signs providing the parking regulations
for each metered block (or partial block) are quite clear. Typically they announce
"2 Hour Parking 9 AM to 7 PM" or similar, and the meters (in at least two JC neighborhoods
the meters were replaced by those centralized pay-boxes, and a few months later the
meters were back) are able to provide up to 1 hour of parking (@ 25c/20 or 15 min).
Occupying a space for more than 2 hr is technically illegal.

Additionally, no one may park on a JC street for more than 2 hr unless they have
a zoned "parking permit," which costs residents $15/yr and non-residents a vastly
higher sum. My Zone 2 covers a large neighborhood -- all of Jersey City Heights
-- but a few of the zones cover a single block near downtown transportation hubs.
Residents get to park by their houses, others don't.

Occasionally zoned parking is even enforced with a parking ticket.

[Charles Bishop]

In article <MPG.33bc34f...@news.individual.net>,

First, "arrested" is might be too strong. It might have been that the
person was cited, and would be required to appear in court at a future
date.

In the case I remember, it was a person who as his good deeds, would
walk along a sidewalk and put coins into the meters that had expired or
were close to expiring.

Others, who have behaved similarly have also been cited or at least
warned that they shouldn't do it.

Parking meters are designed (weasel words as necessary) not to charge
for parking, but to insure that there is turnover for the spaces. That
is the people around the area don't want one car to park there all day,
but to have multiple people come and go and use the stores, cafes, and
other businesses.

If someone feeds the meter for another driver then this turnover is
reduced, and the merchants suffer loss of business.

Also, I think I remember that even the driver of a vehicle cannot feed
the meter for her own car. If they have put in money for the maximum
amount of time, they are not allowed to put in more money for additional
time. This is also for the reason given above - to increase turnover.

A citation is a possible result. However if a person getting a citation
becomes abusive to the cop,they could be arrested.

--
charles

[Jerry Friedman]

On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 3:51:50 AM UTC-6, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 27/06/17 10:38, Mark Brader wrote:
> > Charles Bishop:
> >>>> People have been arrested for feeding the meters of strangers so they
> >>>> won't get a ticket.
> >
> > "Janet":
> >> How would anybody even know the meter feeder was not the driver or
> >> passenger?
> >
> > The offense is about putting money in the meter other than immediately
> > after the car was parked, not about who did it.
>
> Ah, interesting.
>
> In the UK, it is common practice, and perfectly legal, to "feed the
> meter".[1] This may explain why some of us have been a bit slow to catch on.

In the U.S. too.

> [1] Or, at least, it used to be. It's been some time since I've had to
> use a parking meter. They aren't as common in the UK as they used to be.

--

Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 3:32:04 PM UTC-6, Lewis wrote:

> In message <eac5cec2-e454-41b6...@googlegroups.com> Berkeley Brett <roya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I hope you're all well & in good spirits.
>
> > I just received a jury summons in the mail -- I am now required by law to stand by to be a juror if my service is requested.
>
> > Looking at the website of the Contra Costa County Superior Court of California, I am told that I have been "summonsed" (not "summoned"):
>

> Yes.

>
> > http://www.cc-courts.org/jury/general.aspx
>
> > The word appears six times on the page, so it is unlikely to be a typo.
>

> No, it is not.

>
> > Though I have been "summonsed" many times in the past, I don't recall seeing the word "summonsed" in print before, or ever having heard it spoken.
>

> I've never heard it spoken, or if I have it was pronounced "summoned" in
> error, but it is a word that means "issued (or served) with a summons)".

>
> > I wonder, is this a common usage throughout the English-speaking world?
>

> I can't say what ours say since I don't read them, I just check the date
> I need to call in to see if I actually have to appear, but the document
> is called a Jury Summons. Once, several years ago our mailbox had two
> summonses in it.

... my Precious.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Janet]

In article <7f9a8e11-1a36-4a35...@googlegroups.com>,
gram...@verizon.net says...
> Subject: Re: I have been "summonsed" for jury duty (not "summoned", but "summonsed")
> From: Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.usage.english

>
> On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 8:06:05 AM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> > In article <gbWdnaeIJbYSus_E...@giganews.com>, m...@vex.net
> > says...
> > >
> > > Charles Bishop:
> > > >>> People have been arrested for feeding the meters of strangers so they
> > > >>> won't get a ticket.
> > >
> > > "Janet":
> > > > How would anybody even know the meter feeder was not the driver or
> > > > passenger?
> > >
> > > The offense is about putting money in the meter other than immediately
> > > after the car was parked, not about who did it.
> >
> > Eh? It's not rare here for s driver to come back and feed the meter to
> > extend their legal parking.
>
> In New York, Chicago, and Jersey City, the signs providing the parking regulations
> for each metered block (or partial block) are quite clear. Typically they announce
> "2 Hour Parking 9 AM to 7 PM" or similar, and the meters (in at least two JC neighborhoods
> the meters were replaced by those centralized pay-boxes, and a few months later the
> meters were back) are able to provide up to 1 hour of parking (@ 25c/20 or 15 min).
> Occupying a space for more than 2 hr is technically illegal.
>

So, if you pay for one hour, then realise you need more time, can't
you come back to the car, feed in more money and stay for the legal
limit of two hours?

Janet

[bebe...@aol.com]

Or it might be that the maids only fed the meters of tourists, not
locals, based on licence plates. That way, the city would cash in on
both the tourists' money and part of the fines.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Of course you can. That's what I just said. That's not "feeding the meter."

(The unidentified person who wrote the line about "putting money in the meter other
than immediately after the car was parked" was wrong -- or else in their jurisdiction
the meters are able to register periods of time as long as the allowed span of time.)

Near the Harrison, NJ, PATH station, there were meters able to register sufficient
time for a commuter to park there, take the train into NYC, work all day, and take
the train back. I actually did that once, parking for 4 hours or so, but I think I'd
driven to somewhere nearby and didn't want to drive all the way home and take the
local bus to the local PATH station.) Those meters may have been replaced, though,
because they're right next to the Red Bulls (soccer) stadium, and the soccer owners
would want their crowd to pay for parking in their lot.

[LFS]

It occurs to me that I haven't seen an old-fashioned parking meter that
takes coins for a very long time.

Round here on the street and in most car parks you have to buy a ticket
from a machine, for a specified period. You can use cash or credit card
via mobile phone. We used to be able to pass on tickets that were not
completely used but the council stopped that by installing machines
which require you to enter your car number. On the street, the signs
are very clear that once your time is up you can't return for a
specified time - and there are people monitoring who will spot
infringements. Some local car parks have automatic number plate
recognition when you enter and you pay on leaving by entering the car
number on the machine.

In London in the places where we regularly park on the street payment is
by phone app using a credit card.




--
Laura (emulate St George for email)

[Tony Cooper]

It seems that there was some news report a while back about a store
owner who was sending an employee out every so often to feed the
meters on the street. He was doing it because the "meter maid" in
that area was very aggressive at ticketing and it was giving the area
a bad reputation.

The "meter maid" noticed the employee going down the street feeding
several meters, and called a cop. No one was arrested, but it made
the news.

In this city, the "meter maids" downtown are males on bicycles wearing
"Parking Enforcement" emblazoned tee shirts. At least I've never seen
a female "meter maid" in the downtown area. They are not police, and
have no power to arrest.

Over at Lake Eola, there's a female "meter maid" that rides a
three-wheel bicycle and marks tires with a chalk-on-a-stick. There
are no meters in the area where I see her, but the parking time is
restricted to one hour. She seems to be the only "meter maid" that
patrols the street in the area where I see her.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Richard Yates]

On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 01:47:43 -0500, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

>Charles Bishop:
>>> People have been arrested for feeding the meters of strangers so they
>>> won't get a ticket.
>
>Richard Heathfield:
>> How can that possibly be illegal?
>
>By someone legislating it so. If you mean "why would it be", the answer
>is that where parking is metered, it's typically intended that the meter
>also enforces a maximum time that any one car may be parked there for.

And more specifically about the 'why', perhaps the system gets more
revenue from fines for going over the limit than for the fees that are
paid. Feeding other people's meters cuts into the revenue from fines.

[Richard Yates]

On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 04:38:23 -0500, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

>Charles Bishop:
>>>> People have been arrested for feeding the meters of strangers so they
>>>> won't get a ticket.
>
>"Janet":
>> How would anybody even know the meter feeder was not the driver or
>> passenger?
>
>The offense is about putting money in the meter other than immediately
>after the car was parked, not about who did it.

In some circumstances there also may be a maximum time allowed in
which case feeding more money to extend the time might be illegal, but
that is not what is being referred to here.

[Richard Yates]

Some parking spaces may have a maximum allowed time so that feeding
money in later to extend the time is illegal. That is a different
matter from feeding other people's meters so that they avoid
expiration and the resulting fine.

[Lewis]

In message <oisbbg$9j9$1...@dont-email.me> Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> On 26/06/17 22:28, Charles Bishop wrote:
> <snip>

>> Moving from LA to SF, it took much longer than one would expect for a
>> reasonably intelligent person to realize that one could /not/ park on a
>> street without checking for parking rules and regulations.

> In the UK, too, it's always wise to check local parking rules when parking.

> In all my many years of driving, I have only ever received a parking
> penalty *once* - and I (correctly) complained, and had the penalty quashed.

> If you don't want parking tickets, the solution is simple: park legally.

I'm glad to hear you're perfect, but it is just not that simple.

<https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/08/nyregion/Y-SIGNS/Y-SIGNS-popup.jpg>
<http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/233af154f242dd0b90dd41872a80a1db?width=650>
<http://admin.xpatnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/confusing-boston-parking-sign-1.jpg>



--
Indecision is the key to flexibility.

[Lewis]

In message <oisbfq$9j9$2...@dont-email.me> Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

> On 26/06/17 22:32, Charles Bishop wrote:
>> People have been arrested for feeding the meters of strangers so they
>> won't get a ticket.

> How can that possibly be illegal?

Because it deprive the municipality of fines. Duh. I'm only surprised
it's not a capital crime.


--
Two of the most famous products of Berkeley are LSD and Unix.
I don't think that is a coincidence

[Lewis]

In message <gbWdnaeIJbYSus_E...@giganews.com> Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:
> Charles Bishop:
>>>> People have been arrested for feeding the meters of strangers so they
>>>> won't get a ticket.
>
> "Janet":
>> How would anybody even know the meter feeder was not the driver or
>> passenger?

> The offense is about putting money in the meter other than immediately
> after the car was parked, not about who did it.

No.

If I park at a 2 hour meter and I put in enough money for 30 minutes, I
can come back after 30m and put in another 90m worth of money.

--
'Do you know what they call a sausage-in-a-bun in Quirm?' 'No?' said Mr
Tulip 'They called it le sausage-in-le-bun.' 'What, in a --ing foreign
language? You're --ing kidding!'

[Lewis]

In message <a2d7e64c-f3b4-45d6...@googlegroups.com> Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 3:51:50 AM UTC-6, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 27/06/17 10:38, Mark Brader wrote:
>> > Charles Bishop:
>> >>>> People have been arrested for feeding the meters of strangers so they
>> >>>> won't get a ticket.
>> >
>> > "Janet":
>> >> How would anybody even know the meter feeder was not the driver or
>> >> passenger?
>> >
>> > The offense is about putting money in the meter other than immediately
>> > after the car was parked, not about who did it.
>>
>> Ah, interesting.
>>
>> In the UK, it is common practice, and perfectly legal, to "feed the
>> meter".[1] This may explain why some of us have been a bit slow to catch on.

> In the U.S. too.

Not sure where it is common practice anymore, but it is certainly NOT
legal anywhere I've been. If you park at a 1 hour meter and stay long
than an hour by feeding the meter you *will* get a ticket.

--
Matters in hand. He'd put matters in hand all right. If he closed his
eyes he could see the body tumbling down the steps. Had there been a
hiss of shocked breath, down in the darkness of the hall? He'd been
certain they were alone. Matters in hand! He'd tried to wash the blood
off his hands. If he could wash the blood off, he told himself, it
wouldn't have happened. He'd scrubbed and scrubbed. Scrubbed till he
screamed. --Wyrd Sisters

[Richard Heathfield]

On 27/06/17 17:36, Lewis wrote:
> In message <oisbbg$9j9$1...@dont-email.me> Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>> If you don't want parking tickets, the solution is simple: park legally.
>
> I'm glad to hear you're perfect, but it is just not that simple.

Oh, I'm not perfect, not in general. But I'm perfect /in that regard/.
And if I can do it, so can everybody else.

> <https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/08/nyregion/Y-SIGNS/Y-SIGNS-popup.jpg>
> <http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/233af154f242dd0b90dd41872a80a1db?width=650>
> <http://admin.xpatnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/confusing-boston-parking-sign-1.jpg>

If I had to read one of those *while driving*, I would probably find a
multi-storey. But if I've got a few seconds to read them, none of them
is really all that difficult to work out.

[Mark Brader]

Richard Heathfield:
> In the UK at least, the better machines... charge you *on your return*.

> You get a ticket on arrival, you insert it on return, and the machine

> tells you how much you have to pay...

For on-street parking? Interesting. I've only seen that system in
parking lots, where one of these fancier machines can be used for a
much larger number of parking spaces.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Some people open all the windows:
m...@vex.net | wise wives welcome spring by moving the UNIX."
-- ad, Housewife magazine, April 1941

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Mark Brader]

Charles Bishop:
>>>>> People have been arrested for feeding the meters of strangers so they
>>>>> won't get a ticket.

Janet":
>>> How would anybody even know the meter feeder was not the driver or
>>> passenger?

Mark Brader:

>> The offense is about putting money in the meter other than immediately
>> after the car was parked, not about who did it.

Richard Yates:

> In some circumstances there also may be a maximum time allowed in
> which case feeding more money to extend the time might be illegal, but
> that is not what is being referred to here.

I say again: where parking is metered, it's typically intended that the

meter also enforces a maximum time that any one car may be parked there
for.

For the convenience of the people enforcing this limit, the meters are
made so that they cannot show a greater time than the designated maxium,
and there is a prohibition against putting in money other than immediately
after the time when the car was parked.

So if the reason you're adding coins is that the meter allowed 1 hour
and you needed to park for 1 hour but when you parked you only had the
right coins to pay for 30 minutes, you're screwed. But if they didn't
have that law and you were adding coins because you wanted to park for
90 minutes, they'd be screwed unless they caught you parking that long.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | Do not meddle in the affairs of undefined behavior,
m...@vex.net | for it is subtle and quick to anger.

[Mark Brader]

Richard Heathfield:
> <https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/08/nyregion/Y-SIGNS/Y-SIGNS-popup.jpg>

Interesting; I've never seen meter parking that was limited to commercial
vehicles. But then I've hardly ever parked a car on the street in New York.
Anyway, I think the "After" version is a clear improvement.

> <http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/233af154f242dd0b90dd41872a80a1db?width=650

Also interesting. Here we distinguish "no parking", which these days is
shown as P with a red circle-and-slash; "no standing", which is still in
words; and "no stopping", which is shown as a black octagon with the red
circle-and-slash.

Could one of our Australian representatives please explain the S with red
circle-and-slash?
--
Mark Brader "How many pessimists end up by desiring
Toronto the things they fear, in order to prove
m...@vex.net that they are right." -- Robert Mallet

[Richard Heathfield]

On 27/06/17 22:46, Mark Brader wrote:
> Richard Heathfield:
>> In the UK at least, the better machines... charge you *on your return*.
>> You get a ticket on arrival, you insert it on return, and the machine
>> tells you how much you have to pay...
>
> For on-street parking?

Occasionally, yes.

> Interesting. I've only seen that system in
> parking lots, where one of these fancier machines can be used for a
> much larger number of parking spaces.

More or less the same here - it's far more common in car parks
(especially multi-storey) than on the street. But such machines are
occasionally used for street parking.

[Charles Bishop]

In article <g3p4lc1c8uirvu5hs...@4ax.com>,

Oh, you can be fined for removing the chalk mark too, I think.

PTD might be able to help - there was a "reality" show featuring meter
maids and their travails during work

I think in some jurisdictions, now they have license plate readers and
the meter maid drives his circuit. On the return circuit, the plate
reader/computer lets him know if a car has exceeded the limit.

Oh, also, SF had a scandal years ago when the people who were collecting
the coins from the meters, were, um "diverting" some of them to their
own use. This when the coins from each meter into a container than had
easy access. Now the containers have no way for anyone to get coins out
without a key, which the coin collectors don't have, natch.

There was (in SF?) also an app that let you "sell" your parking space
when you were ready to leave. You let people know, people would pay and
you would wait for them before you pulled out of the space. It was shut
down, TTBOMR.

--
charle

[Charles Bishop]

In article <psl3lcprtk1596u7p...@4ax.com>,
Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 20:49:08 -0700, Charles Bishop
> <ctbi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <oisbfq$9j9$2...@dont-email.me>,

> > Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On 26/06/17 22:32, Charles Bishop wrote:
> >> > People have been arrested for feeding the meters of strangers so they
> >> > won't get a ticket.
> >>

> >> How can that possibly be illegal?
> >

> >It's a government regulation. Need I say more?
>
> Wouldn't it be a city ordinance? A city ordinance is a law that is
> enforceable only with the city limits and is originated and passed by
> the city officers. Usually a City Council.

Here I was being clever[1] and here we are doing English definitions. I
picked regulation thinking this might cover ordinances, laws, and well
whatever else might regulate the care and feeding of parking meters.

This [mild] rebuke will teach me not to come to class unprepared.
>
> Ordinances are used when there is something a city wants to control
> but is not something that the state legislators want to pass because
> not all cities, and the areas outside of cities, want the same law.
>
> Parking regulations are usually city ordinances. Also zoning laws.

I know for a fact that parking regulations are not zoning laws.

[1] Not as clever as your essays, but still

--
charles