Как отыметь мента?

[Shtirliz]

У.С. Федерал Протецтиве Сервице Полице

Афигенно :ladush:

http://members.aol.com/usfpsfl/organ.html

Федеральное агеснcтBо которое хостаеT свой Bебсайт на вебпайже узера АОЛ'a

[Neron]

это у вас так в законе написано?

Вообще-то этому учат в любой автошколе: "Дети, всегда едьте со скоростью потока, потому что это наиболее безопасно и для вас, и для тех, кто едет рядом с вами".

если да, то полицейскому как блюстителю порядка на дорогах виднее - что безопасно, и что нет

За безопасность движения отвечает водитель, а не полицейский. Головой и своей свободой. Полицейский же отвечает за порядок на дороге во время движения.

это его работа решить, а не ваша
ваша работа - следовать правилам движения

Дык я и следовал -- ехал со скоростью потока ;)

[Dima1234]

Вот такое письмишко я послал за 95 миль в час спидинг тикет на хайвее, который я выиграл и получил свои денюжки назад из суда:



STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant's Name:
Case No.:
I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902.
I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 22349(a).

The facts of my case are as follows: on ... while driving northbound on ... leading to the junction with ..., I was stopped by CHP Officer ... and was charged with violating CVC 22349(a). Though Officer ... has alleged that I was driving 95mph in a 65mph zone, I believe that I was driving no faster than 70 mph.
The Basic Speed Law, CVC 22350, states: "No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property."
On ... at that time of a day the road was dry and clear with light traffic. Where I was stopped, Interstate 280 is a well-maintained five lane freeway, quite safe to travel on at approximately 70 mph with favorable weather and road conditions.
Section (b) of Speed Law Violations, CVC 22351(b), states: "The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits...or established as authorized in this code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and under the conditions then existing."
The conditions existing at the time and place of my stop were favorable and made the speed I was traveling Safe and Reasonable under these conditions. As such, I know that I was not in violation of the basic speed law at the time and place of my citation and, pursuant to CVC 22351(b), contest that my speed at the time of my traffic stop was therefore not prima facie unlawful.
Further, I believe that the posted speed of 65mph on northbound portion of Interstate... is artificially low, reflecting an out-of-date traffic and engineering survey and, as such, may constitute an illegal Speed Trap pursuant to CVC 40802(a) (2) which defines an illegal radar speed trap as:
"A particular section of a highway with a... speed limit that is provided by this code... [which] limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects."
If the traffic survey on Interstate 280 is more than five years old, the officer's use of radar to determine my speed was illegal.
When using radar evidence, the prosecution is required to prove that the use of radar is not an illegal speed trap. Speed Trap Evidence 40803(b) states:
"In any prosecution under this code of a charge involving the speed of a vehicle, where enforcement involves the use of radar or other electronic devices which measure the speed of moving objects, the prosecution shall establish, as part of its prima facie case, that the evidence or testimony presented is not based upon a speed trap as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 40802."
If the prosecution in its written declaration does not attach proof (a certified copy of the speed survey) to establish as part of its prima facie case, that the northbound portion of Interstate 280 in ... is not an illegal Speed Trap, as they are required to do (Pursuant to CVC 40803(b), I trust the Court will rule the radar evidence inadmissible and dismiss my case pursuant to CVC 40805.
CVC 40805, Admission of Speed Trap Evidence, states:
"Every court shall be without jurisdiction to render a judgment of conviction against any person for violation of this code involving the speed of a vehicle if the court admits any evidence or testimony secured in violation of, or which is inadmissible under this article."

In addition, since the CVC 40802 (A) (c) states:
(c) (A) When radar is used, the arresting officer has successfully
Completed a radar operator course of not less than 24 hours on the
Use of police traffic radar, and the course was approved and
Certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.

(D) The radar, laser, or other electronic device used to measure
The speed of the accused meets or exceeds the minimal operational
Standards of the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration, and
Has been calibrated within the three years prior to the date of the
Alleged violation by an independent certified laser or radar repair
And testing or calibration facility.

(i) (C) The prosecution proved that the arresting officer complied
With subparagraphs (A) and (B) and that an engineering and traffic
Survey has been conducted in accordance with subparagraph (B) of
Paragraph (2). The prosecution proved that, prior to the officer
Issuing the notice to appear, the arresting officer established that
The radar, laser, or other electronic device conformed to the
Requirements of subparagraph (D).

(ii) (D) the radar, laser, or other electronic device used to measure
The speed of the accused meets or exceeds the minimal operational
Standards of the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration, and
Has been calibrated within the three years prior to the date of the
Alleged violation by an independent certified laser or radar repair
And testing or calibration facility.


If, in his written reply to this Request for Trial by Declaration, Officer Gatty does not provide satisfactory proof that he has completed a radar operator course of not less than 24 hours on the use of police traffic radar and the course was approved and certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training or that the radar used to measure my speed meets or exceeds the minimal operational standards of the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration and has been calibrated within the three years prior to the date of the alleged violation by an independent certified laser, or radar repair and testing, or calibration facility, I trust in the Court's fairness and ask that my citation be dismissed in the interest of justice.

I respectfully submit that the Court will rule that the radar evidence inadmissible and dismiss my case pursuant to CVC 40805.
If the court does not find in my favor in this case, I request a Trial de Novo.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State... that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: ...

[Shtirliz]

тогда для тебя явится новостью узнать, что любой офицер полиции может остановить тебя за нарушение правил.. включая офис шерифа .. и прийти в суд давать показания..)))

Начнём с того что меня любой полицейский не остановить потому что я знаю что такое [ jurisdiction] и когда её нету.:D

[Dima1234]

Ты ешё не выиграл а уже интересуешся

Хотелось бы ясности. Пошло?

[На качелях...]

я не соло практишенер, за меня фирма решает

я доверяю джаджменту партнёроф (а иначе я бы с ними не работала) что по этическим соображанием - и чтоб не подорвать престиж фирмы - ани липовый кэйс нивазьмут

и да, у нас у каждого всегда есть опшн уйти с кэйса если что то в нём нинравица

(прям праписные истины какие то рассказываю)

свист и перевод стрелок.. партнеры решают, бла-бла-бла..
и как только тебе штота не нравится в кейсе - ты с него уходишь
и уверенность в правоте клиентов у тебя стопроцентная..
ну нафига так врать и загонять себя в угол

но ты, канешна, не признаешься

так же как и Штирлиц, будешь юлить и искать отмазки, хоть ему стопитдисят линков ткни на федерал полис

[Манюня]

Нерон, я низнаю чему учат вас там в школе, но если в правилах это нинаписано, ваша скорость потока - это нарушение

и только потому что не вы адин нарушали, это не делает это правильным

магли бы в другую линию перистроица

если бы хатели практиковать сэйф драйвинг

а вы решили не практиковать

за то и поплатились

[Манюня]

свист и перевод стрелок.. партнеры решают, бла-бла-бла..
и как только тебе штота не нравится в кейсе - ты с него уходишь
и уверенность в правоте клиентов у тебя стопроцентная..
ну нафига так врать и загонять себя в угол

ты падумай на сикунду что это правда, да

и тогда тибе станет стыдно что ты без оснаваний на миня наизжал

[Shtirliz]

Хотелось бы ясности. Пошло?

Давай...правила такие....спорим на 5 тыш....ты показываеш мне федеральную полицию и закон который позвояет им инфорсать траффик законы штата ( даже не города).

Если ты не показываеш это в течении недели, ты присылаеш мне денги. Согласен?

[На качелях...]

Федеральное агеснцтБо которое хостаеТ свой Бебсайт на вебпайже узера АОЛьа

Штирлиц, только упертые дураки не признают своей неправоты.
какая нахрен разница, где они хостаются? ты знаешь, что за это предусмотрено наказание, если ты не государственное учреждение и тем более не [law enforsement agency]?