Adversary not necessary in adversary proceeding

[marc stevens]

I've posted a new article on my web site:

www.adventuresinlegalland.com/index.php?/content/view/65/27/

[eye2i2hear]

marc, speaking of "new"... any idea as to a release date on your next book?

Oh, and how about the forum moving to the new AiLL site? Is that still in the plans?

[marc stevens]

I'm working on the book, slowly. Hope to have it finished and available for the fall.

Kurt's taking care of the forum, he'll probably have it soon, that's way over my head.

[marc stevens]

Fixed them both, I'm still learnin dis tuff. ;D

[Darren Dirt]

adventuresinlegalland.com/response2.jpg

aggravated
Law. characterized by some feature defined by law that enhances the crime, as the intention of the criminal or the special vulnerability of the victim. (e.g. aggravated assault; aggravated rape)

Aggravated assault/rape = aggravated bodily/sexual injury. I get that.

But aggravated noa-licensa? With admittedly NO injury*? Yikes! How the heck can that be "aggravated"? Either the victim is more severely "injured" than "normal", or the criminal action was "worse" than normal... Mea confusa.




Oh, and ps:

WOW, the "representative" of "the people" musta been having a Friday afternoon "beverage" or something: "First and foremost, this is a criminal action. There is no plaintiff is this action..."


I can imagine this lie-yer's elementary school writing assignments:

Is the summer, my dog lives is the doghouse.

Is the evening, my dad comes is the house after putting the car is is the garage.


And to think this brainiac claims to "speak" for "the people"



- - -

*Page 2 does seem to say they are claiming the defendant "violated" someone. Someone whose name is "the Vehicle and Traffic Law".

[eye2i2hear]

So marc (and anyone), what's your take on just why there's this sort of blatant disregard for the "founding" (&/or "precedence") forms? Is it perhaps just power hungry control freaks now simply taking advantage of having the gun? Or power intoxication?
Or like inevitable fantasy continuation/expansion (ie inevitable when you start allowing fictions over facts to start with)?
Or is it like democracy insinuated (ie people vote for such in their silence)?
Or is the "precedence" all along just been a perpetuating, designed incrementalization smoke and mirrors?
Or is it [....]??

(granted, maybe that's wishful/wasteful thinking to even try to guess)...

[Darren Dirt]

power. control. in the form of "money". but it's still about man's power over and at the expense of man.

just now, instead of brute force as in millennia past, today it's in tricky linguistic packaging.

[eye2i2hear]

darrendirt said:

just now, instead of brute force as in millennia past, today it's in tricky linguistic packaging.

Where you wonder if the strategy change was pretty well forced by technology in the forms of 'personal' gunpowder (firearms) and communication (first the printing press, now the internet)...? Though you might wonder as well if its just another form of amusing challenge for some?

[johngr]

In California, Washington and Pennsylvania traffic cases don't even need to be a DA in the courtroom at any stage of the proceedings. In fact the Commissioner isn't required to be an attorney. The only one required to be an attorney is the representative of the accused.

[eye2i2hear]

johngr said:

In California, Washington and Pennsylvania traffic cases don't even need to be a DA in the courtroom at any stage of the proceedings. In fact the Commissioner isn't required to be an attorney. The only one required to be an attorney is the representative of the accused.

Have you been able to read the actual code/statutes for any of those States to see if they've changed it/"the law" to reflect this? Or are they just morphing into what makes it the most productive (like the family business that they are)/"winging it" as they go?

The double standard is amazing. Of course for their $ide (the winning team) its gotten so routine the legal beagles probably justify it by mere rote precedent. Aka "been there, done that" assembly line.

Not that it matters in actuality whether the scribblings called code have been changed. Its more a simple matter of how blatant these incorporated sectors are, coupled with how complacent and/or fearful the 'citizen=subjects' are. For as others have noted it, "the law IS whatever the guy with the gun SAYS it is".

Welcome to the forum, btw!

[johngr]

In People v. Carlucci the California Supreme Court held that there is no need for a prosecutor in traffic trials and that the Commissioner or Judge may ask questions (essentially act as DA imo) of witnesses and that this doesn't not violate due process rights or create the appearance of unfairness (see also People v. Cook). Washington has a similar Supreme Court decision. I'm not sure but I think Pennsylvania's might be written into the code/court procedures.

[lummox2]

I am sure they did, but only the most insane of people could claim that was an adversarial procedure.

[eye2i2hear]

lummox2 said:

I am sure they did, but only the most insane of people could claim that was an adversarial procedure.

only the most AiLL insane...

[Darren Dirt]

eye2i2hear said:

lummox2 said:

I am sure they did, but only the most insane of people could claim that was an adversarial procedure.

only the most AiLL insane...

The 'Wik

The G

[marc stevens]

johngr said:

In People v. Carlucci the California Supreme Court held that there is no need for a prosecutor in traffic trials and that the Commissioner or Judge may ask questions (essentially act as DA imo) of witnesses and that this doesn't not violate due process rights or create the appearance of unfairness (see also People v. Cook). Washington has a similar Supreme Court decision. I'm not sure but I think Pennsylvania's might be written into the code/court procedures.

Most "states" do civil traffic that way. The Arizona court of appeals determined it is not considered a violation of the due process clause because there is "implied consent" to such proceedings when someone has a driver's license.

Yet another reason not to have a driver's license.