Order in the Court
Indianapolis Attorney Paul Ogden has filed suit against the Marion County Traffic Court alleging the system is unfair and violates the Constitutional rights of defendants who challenge their parking tickets because they can be hit with additional fines totalling up to $500 if they are unsuccessful.
Ogden claims that violates due process. He also claims when traffic court is closed to the public it violates the Indiana Constitution’s requirement that Courts should be open.
Two points. First, I don’t think the closed court argument will get very far. If I remember correctly, the fire marshal’s office has a limit of 165 people in traffic court. If it’s a crowded day the defendants get priority and the public has to wait outside, if there’s room the public is allowed in. The defendants are the priority, not their family members who come to watch.
On the issue of excessive fines, I had to go back and check my notes from a Spring interview with Traffic Judge William Young. Young told me the point of the additional fine, which is allowed under Indiana law, is no different than what happens when someone refuses to plea bargain. If you are accused of a crime and the prosecution offers you 5 years for a guilty plea and you say no, they can ask for the maximum penalty and your rights to due process aren’t violated. If you are being fined more than the statute allows, then there is definitely an 8th Amendment violation.
The problem with most defendants is that they come to Court trying to game the system. They don’t hire an attorney to navigate them through court procedure or how to question the police officer who is their accuser on the radar gun that was used to record their speed. Instead, they hope the police won’t show and they can walk. Sorry folks, real life doesn’t work that way.
If Ogden and his clients don’t like Indiana’s traffic laws, they should petition the Legislature to change it. Marion County Traffic Court officials are simply doing what the law allows them to do.
And before I forget, one of Ogden’s clients was fined $25 for not wearing a seat belt. The client says he didn’t want to challenge the ticket because he “heard about the court policy regrading additional fines.” Maybe the client should have made a call because he would have found that a seat belt violation is $25 regardless if you challenge it and there are no additional fines, unlike other traffic offenses.
December 9th, 2009 at 6:25 am
Another frivolous lawsuit by yet another frivolous attorney.
December 9th, 2009 at 7:24 am
Actually the open courtroom is a slam dunk. The Constitution of the State of Indiana specifically requires it. If there is a crowding problem the solution is extra sessions…not to bar people from the courtroom. You can't bar the general public from a courtroom in Indiana. (With the exception of paternity cases and juvenile actions.) You just can't. Yet Traffic Court does it every week.
As far as your criminal court analogy goes, let's say a criminal court judge warned that in his courtroom, if you don't plead guilty to charged offenses, he will assess the maximum penalty should you be found guilty. Same problem. The punishment has to be related to the crime committed, not the decision to ask for a trial. You can't punish someone more for choosing to go to trial.
We fully expect though that these are matters more for the appellate court. I can understand the reluctance of a trial court judge to overrule another trial judge. Unfortunately though the rules didn't allow us to do a direct writ of prohibition/writ of mandamus with the Indiana Supreme Court or we would have done that.
December 9th, 2009 at 7:37 am
Abdul,
Have you tried calling traffic court? Good luck.
None of the multiple signs warning of a $500 fine make a note of an exception for seat belts and there was no one accessible at the court to inform me otherwise. When you have multiple signs, in plain English, saying “You may be fined $500 in addition to the citation”, why ask? I already knew the answer.
I also was not fined for “not wearing a seat belt.” I was pulled over for not wearing it properly.
December 9th, 2009 at 7:39 am
So Paul, are you saying the Court should allow people in past capacity and create a fire hazard? And by that same logic, a judge could never clear a courtroom if the crowd became unruly.
December 9th, 2009 at 7:41 am
Let's not forget…the Traffic Court's website says you can be fined up to $10,000 plus court costs if you challenge your ticket. That at best is extremely illegal.
The judge actually screwed up on Ishii's fine. It should not have been more than $500 under Indiana law.
Bottom line is that additional fine has to be based on the facts of the case, not the decision to take the case to court. My criminal court analogy above is on the mark. Even though a judge's punishment might be within the statutory range, the problem is when the punishment is for the exercise of a constitutional right rather than the crime committed.
December 9th, 2009 at 7:47 am
If you're talking a one time occurence, you'd have a point. Let's say there was a high profile court that sparked a lot of community interest and a lot of people wanted to come in the doors. I think in that case, he's perfectly within his rights to limit the number of people in the courtroom.
The problem though is that he bars the general public from the courtroom every week. That's not a one time occurence, but a regular occurence that needs to be planned for…create special sessions.
My guess is that the Judge is going to change this policy mooting this issue before we get to court, or at least to the appeals stage. It's utterly undefensible.
I don't think anyone doubts the authority of a judge to remove a person in the audience is being disruptive.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:00 am
I got a speeding ticket on 465 in March. 59 in a 55. I kid you not. I was enroute to a doc because I was ill.
I tried to pay it. But what do you pay? The amounts aren't on the ticket. It is a Byzantine system of phone instructions and nonsense. I went out to the court, and stood in line for over an hour. I had to leave. I have this thing going called a life.
I sent a letter to the Court informing them I'd like to pay the fine but explain the reason for speeding, and to know the exact cost. I heard nothing.
I understand Judge Young wanted to make his court run smoother. Last tiem I was in traffic court, about ten eyars ago, it was out near Beech Grove in some shoping center and the waits were pathetic.
So I've tried to be sympathetic.
But this judge has taken a system that wasn't broken and made it worse, if that's possible. The fines used to be on the backside of the ticket. I have no idea how much I'm supposed to pay, and to determine the exact fine, I have no choice but to interact with the court.
And that particular court's phone tree and operator manners, resemble AT&T or Comcast. I'm just waiting for them to farm it out to “Clyde” in India, who has four stock answers for whatever question you're asking.
The end result? I got a notice in the mail last week that said my license had bene suspended. So now I'm delaing with that.
All because of two things: an over-zelaous trooper who wouldn't listne to my explanation, and a judge who's effed up a system beyond belief.
Is this judge by chance related to the legislator Young? That would explain a lot.
**end of bitching session** I now return you to your regular programming.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:15 am
I also like how Abdul dismisses a little thing like Article I, Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution as “psh, family members don't need to be there.” Of course, this also keeps the media out from the court, or anybody who would like to see how the judge conducts the court before deciding to bring their citation to a trial.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Judge Young had so many problems when he was in drug court. He is an egomaniac like many judges. Abdul, you seem to just take his word that he is doing right. While fines within the statutory provisions are usually ok, it is not constitutionally permissible to use fines or threats of additional punitive measures if a person exercises his constitutioinal right to trial. If this is ok, then only wealthy people would be able to challenge tickets as poor people could not take the chance of being found guilty with the increased fine.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:50 am
As an experiment, I just called the Traffic Court. There are four options. I selected each option in four individual calls. Each time I get transferred elsewhere, I get a busy signal.
So much for the “You could've called the court” talking point being made.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:51 am
When judicial discretion turns into a pattern of judicial fiat, then Houston we have a problem. To claim these warning signs are simply informational strains credibility, and to rule by punitive retribution if a citizen looses his plea of innocence goes against the spirit if not the letter.
Ok, let's say my seatbelt was buckeled accross my lap instead of my shoulder and I'm ticketed for improper use supposedly on a technicality. You have to be kidding. And to perpetually wait in line to state my $25.00 case under the sword of intimidation hardly smacks of justice. Where are the signs of exemptions? I'd rather see a sign of 'fair & balanced'. After all, this is a court of law that is supposed to dispense justice with a blind eye; not retalitory retribution.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Last time I sat in traffic court it was the attending police who had to be shushed before the judge would enter (and four times at that). And, it must be a daily occurrence, because the Court Clerk repeated it in a rather resigned fashion. If the judge rally wanted to get things rolling better, maybe he should spread around a few bushels of “contempt of court” citations to the chatty cathys in blue (or black).
.
The only people I have found to be chattier are teachers in teacher meetings (just try and get all of them to sit quietly in their chairs to pay attention to the person in charge).
December 9th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Gosh Abdul, how can Paul Ogden ALWAYS be so wrong in your eyes? You never seem to have a good thing to say about him or Gary Welsh or anything either of them say or do.
I tend to put more stock in Ogden's legal theories than yours, because he has practical experience as a real practicing attorney.
I just can't help but wonder if your negativity toward Ogden has anything to do with the fact that you are BFF with Brizzi and Tom John.
That and the fact that Gary Welsh told folks you were the guy behind IndyUndercover, which is probably the greatest most beloved blog of all time.
Having said that, I do value your work in bringing to light things like school spending and democrat shenanigans. I just wish that you were not so partisan toward your republican insider friends.
December 9th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Matt? You are the coolest kid!
December 9th, 2009 at 10:48 am
I was wondering how Paul earns a living, since it seems he spends all his litigation in frivilous lawsuits against the city? That said, I think the idea of a substantial penalty for creating a huge drain on resources is appropriate. If you want to game the court system, then expect just punishment.
December 9th, 2009 at 10:54 am
I fought the last ticket I received. The officer had the wrong car color on the ticket. I pointed that out to the judge and he said it didn't matter. Traffic court seems to have its own rules with regard to due process.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:13 am
If it's a “huge drain”, then maybe we should consider as a society how wise it really is to be dolling out citations for minor issues such as traffic and parking.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:46 am
I understand this law suit. The judge is telling you that if you are NOT guilty, you take a chance of losing the case it will cost you more in the long run then if you just paid the ticket. How many people goes ahead and pays it because they know that he is going to add $500 onto it just because he can?
December 9th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
I hear you IndyRacer…most guilty people will pay the fine because it is not worth a day to go to court to fight it. They would make more money working than gaming the system. I think probably most of the people who fight their tickets are people who sincerely believe themselves to be “not guilty” should not face additonal penalties because a false accusation compels them to defend their innocence. Many people are principled that way. I would not pay a ticket if I was not guilty. I would fight. And I should not be penalized for defending my own honor.
.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Guest? Ogden's not nearly as “frivolous” as you. You ever see him running about making cowardice anonymous comments on blogs, do you? He'll sign his name to his opinions and legal theories. That's more than you've got going for you, isn't it?
December 9th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Hmmm, somebody help me out here. If you get arrested on a misdemeanor charge and please it out, that's one thing. If you ask for a bench trial, that's another. If you demand a jury trial for something like a public intoxication charge (which is WELL within your legal rights, after all) do you REALLY think the judge is going to hand down the same sentence as he would at a bench trial? Well according to this logic, he's not allowed to because the defendant is exercising their rights, aren't they?
Yet you know d*** well if you've spent any time in court that judge would throw the book at anybody who demands a jury trial on something like that, and it's been happening since the dawn of time. However, the only lawsuit we can find to file on this is out of TRAFFIC court? Ha.
I would think the open court thing would fly, though. They had spoken of moving traffic court out to 38/Lafayette and also 38/High School but the neighborhoods shot it down (too many police cars would give the area a bad image is what I was told.)
Traffic court has never run smoothly. It's a trainwreck now, but the idea is to keep people from showing up frivolously. It's gotten better.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Traffic Court only exists to process traffic law infractions. The monies taken in by fines and penalties seems to fund only the Traffic Court itself (there's a conflict of interest, in my opinion) and police “training” (a set of activities that doesn't seem to include civil interaction with those who are, in effect their employers, or the need for the enforcers of law to follow the law, for example).
.
If government didn't feel the need to micromanage its citizens' driving and parking behaviors, then Traffic Court would either become superfluous, or be able to concentrate on egregious breaches of common sense driving (like reckless driving behavior, for example). Or, god forbid, in putting those resources to better use somewhere else in the Courts system (like in Superior or Family Courts).
.
As for police “training”, funding for those activities should reside exclusively within the framework of the general public safety budget.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
A little different perspective on things. There are inherent procedural defects in the way traffic tickets are prosecuted. According to the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction and Indiana's Administrative Rules and Procedures Act complaining government agencies such as the BMV are required by law to conduct hearings before proceeding into a judical court.
The government skips the agency hearing and instead arraigns the alleged defendant into a judical court thus violating procedural due process. Therefore the issue is due process violation and not the merits of the alleged complaint.
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies when a claim is originally cognizable in the courts but involves issues that fall within the
special competence of an administrative agency and in this case the BMV. Under the doctrine, a court can stay litigation and refer such issues to the agency for its decision.
Here is the law requiring an agency hearing from Indiana's ARPA Title 5 IC 4-21.5-3-8 Sanctions; temporary orders
Sec. 8. (a) An agency may issue a sanction or terminate a legal right, duty, privilege, immunity, or other legal interest not described by section 4, 5, or 6 of this chapter “only after conducting a proceeding (hearing)” under this chapter.
See this case for insight to right to agency hearing. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.p....
An objection to the skipping of the agency hearing is fatal to the prosecution because without an agency determination for the judical court to review the court lacks subject matter to proceed according to trial rules.
The mere act of learning how to challenge subject matter jurisdicition of agency courts will liberate most from them and curb the indiscrimate issuance of traffic tickets imo.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
So the ultimate hammer they've got is, if you can't figure out how much to pay, and it drags out too long, they suspend your license.
As great gramps used to say: that's bird huntin' with a canon.
Again, I ask: is this judge related to the legislator who's running for Congress? Because if he is, the ego runs in the family. Big-time, and beyond all justifiable proportions.
December 9th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
So, Abdul, your position seems to be that these people are “guilty, until proven guiltier, by reason of innocence“? How very Gestapo of you. I would love the revenue generation in the name of justice, if it lowered the excise taxes on my vehicles. But it won’t, will it?
December 9th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Paul, you should know by now that Abdul does not like to hear the “C”-word (Constitution).
BTW, the IndyStar article about this was really rockin' yesterday afternoon. Go for it! I hope you kick Young's azz
December 9th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Matthew, you should know by now that Abdul simply cannot STAND to talk about our Constitution.
I don't know what part of SHALL BE OPEN that Abdul, or that LiaR Young, don't understand:
Article 1 Section 12. All courts shall be open; and every person, for injury done to him in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law. Justice shall be administered freely, and without purchase; completely, and without denial; speedily, and without delay
December 9th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
There is a person on IndyStar posting as PoliceOfficer, who states that 90 percent of the cases in Traffic Court are decided against Citizens. Seems pretty slanted to me.
December 9th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Shucks, I thought that ALL fines were supposed to go into the Common School Fund. So sayeth Article 8 Section 2 of our Constitution.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Is it really true that Abdul does not like the Constitution? I do not like how he just acts as though everyone is guilty when they have the right to defend themselves in the good ole USA. I do not know you Abdul but you sound more like an egomaniac than a man with any real convictions. Anyways, my husband was licensed in law for years and a top notch defense attorney. He says that you can deal with the courts in a different fashion because we run under admiralty law. You can literally shut down the courts if you had this overstanding.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Abdul makes some good points, but the “citizens must pay whatever we say” syndrome is real enough. “How much” seems to factor into this issue as well.
There are parallel concerns regarding property tax appeals; taking 2 / 3 / 4+ years for the apparent “luxury of a hearing,” placing an undue hardship on owners, unjustifiably forced to pay exorbitant overcharges, for several years until their appeals are “heard.” Isn't the endured hardship of administrative remedy delayed also justice denied?
In America, payment disputes are set aside until settled (i.e. credit card purchases, invoice discrepancies or overcharges, etc.). The county's excuse is understaffing, the same problem which led Marion County to hire Manitron at a taxpayer expense of $1M+, to underperform the 2007 reassessment. By imposing an unrealistic performance Manitron disclaimed any responsibility by
Yet this same county found $1M+ dollars to pay Manitron for substandard work in underperforming reassessment, while protecting Manitron from any standard by imposing an impossible time allotment or schedule to perform professional quality work; from which Manitron was therefore able to disclaim responsibility. Once again it's citizens who are unduly burdened with the unfair malpractices of government.
According to Economist Morton Marcus (Who named his one column “Eye On The Pie” anyway? That's a topic unto itself.), from October 2007 through October of this year, Indiana has lost approx 108,000 workers to other places, states, etc. That's lost- not gained!!! Ahh well, none of those people owned property or saw themselves as members of an “ownership society,” right? If only we'd “re-educate” ourselves, would we then “understand” that the depopulation trend is positive- it's citizens or people who are the problem? Another 108,000 workers gone by October 2011 is surely progress… right?
December 10th, 2009 at 6:12 am
Clearly as an experienced police officer with 34 years, the reason people come to court the most is the hope that the officer doesn't show. Rarely and I do mean rarely does someone come and contest the ticket that the violation did not occur. Usually the excuse is that they didn't mean to do it, or in case of speeding, not as many miles over as claimed. About 1 percent of the cases have the belief that the offense didn't occur. Many many excuses on why its okay with what they did.
December 10th, 2009 at 7:29 am
The lawsuit has nothing to do with if someone is guilty or not.
December 10th, 2009 at 8:08 am
Melyssa, for the first time (ever) I disagree with you. I've been in traffic court before, and very few people who go to trial believe they did not commit the offense. I've even seen people admit their violation during their testimony. -From what I've seen it's almost all gaming the system.
December 10th, 2009 at 8:10 am
IndyAries: If that was not the case, there would be a problem. You see, only those who commit violations should be getting the tickets. It's not the lottery, although plenty seem to consider traffic court a game.
December 10th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Traffic enforcement IS a lottery.
.
Three cars speeding, only one gets stopped and ticketed.
.
There's equal justice for all.
.
And why is traffic enforcement the primary effort for police agencies anyway. Isn't there ANYTHING else they could be doing?
Like maybe proactively patrolling crime ridden areas?
Or, maybe actively managing traffic around wrecks during rush hours (instead of playing note-taker or site gawker)?
Or, maybe becoming a part of the community, instead of playing bully for local bureaucrats?
.
No. That would be WAY too much trouble. And, there might not be as many donuts involved.
December 10th, 2009 at 10:18 am
The point of the lawsuit has nothing to do with guilty or not-guilty related to the charge. It's that the process of traffic court violates various rights to the citizens, including a closed court (which goes directly against the IN Constitution)
December 10th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Traffic enforcement isn't just something LEO do during their regular shifts. PDs across the country apply for federal pell grants where LEOs have a quota to meet and all they do is cite traffic citations. This is usually used as overtime pay, and if they don't meet a quota, they won't get paid. Meaning they'll be more diligent about finding every little thing wrong (and more tickets and less warnings) than what they'd do during a regular shift.
December 10th, 2009 at 11:02 am
And it sounds like from reading over on Ogden's blog this morning that it also violates fire code when they lock the defendants IN the courtroom and don't let them come and go freely.
December 10th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
The problem here is not the law or the process but the judge. He is a loose cannon who gets moved when the heat is turned up on him. I wonder what court that are considering moving him to now.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:08 am
I disagree Matthew; those found not guilty have no penalty. Those found guilty are whining about the penalty the judge imposes. It's that simple.
December 11th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
It's not a matter of opinion. It simply is not about the verdict, but the process of Traffic Court imposing fines beyond court costs, and the unconstitutional closing of the court room to the public.
Furthermore, I find that those who accuse me of whining simply don't have any way to make a case, so they just use thinly-veiled insults to dismiss others and myself completely.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
What we read in the note below is one “city's” in terrorem response to the defendant's act of compelling STATE to prove up its case. CITY is effectively “criminalizing” the exercise of the right of asserting a defense.
To criminalize the exercise of the right of defending oneself is a very Nazi-communo-fascist thing to do.
This mendacity shows up in all kinds of ways and places. The note below is just one more example of it.
On the good news side, the reality must be this. It's hurting the city, commercially, for those of us who know how to engage the commercial debate to do so. This sounds like a statement of desperation by the city, which means that we're getting much closer to the end of the “ticket” scams.
Regarding the pending end of the “ticket” scams, let's engage in a brief review: (be sure to check the statutes and definitions in your own STATE — the following are conceptual; i.e., to know these is to understand the definitions in your STATE)
(1) “transportation” means removing people and/or property from here to there for profit or hire under the choice of law of the “place” called “this state;” (this term is very rarely defined anywhere, which should be our greatest clue that it's a scam)
(2) “vehicle” is a conveyance used for “transportation” purposes (at the time relevant to the issuance of the ticket); (key is the concept of “use”)
(3) “driver” is the person behind the wheel of a “vehicle;”
(4) “motor vehicle” is a “vehicle” with a motor; (the actual definitions here will be much longer; the simplification intends to highlight the key concept, namely that “motor vehicle” depends “algebraically” on “vehicle,” which depends “algebraically” on “transportation” — if no “transportation,” then no “vehicle;” hence no “motor vehicle.” We're dealing with a system that lives and breaths on semantics; so, we are compelled to learn the semantics and to argue the semantics; these are commercial scams, so we must learn to think commercially);
(5) “operator” is the person behind the wheel of a “motor vehicle;” and
(6) “this state” is the “federal area,” or the “federal zone,” i.e., the “hover zone.” Picture 48 contiguous States, Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and all the rest of the territories and protectorates. Now, picture above all that land a clear acrylic sheet hovering 25 feet above the land. To “see” that clear acrylic sheet is to “see” the “place” called “this state.” I describe “this state” this way to communicate the concept that “this state” (1) has nothing to do with any State, and (2) has nothing to do with the Law of the Land as its fundamental choice of law. The Law of the Sea applies to all matters that accrue relative to the water or relative to the air; hence, I put “this state” in the air right above wherever you may happen to be.
All “places” that operated formerly under the Common Law and that presently function with “funny money” operate out of this exact same legal “model.” All of them must have their equivalent of the “hover zone.” Thus, all of them must recognize the difference between one in the Proper Capacity and one in the FEDERAL CAPACITY.
The STATEs MAY and DO regulate “transportation” activity in “this state.” Whether one is in the “transportation” line of commerce at any given time is known best by the person receiving that “ticket.”
Threatening someone with a fine for exercising his right of redress sounds very much like a screamin' violation of 18 USC §§ 241 and 242. There are likely witness-tampering crimes that apply, as well. This is a time to study into 42 USC § 1983 and related bases for commercial claims.
As we see in the information below, very few people are actually in a position to engage this kind of debate, so those who ARE “called” to do so are doing a service to their family, friends, neighbors, communities, states, and to the nation as a whole. Keep up the great work.
Harmon L. Taylor, Legal Reality, Dallas, Texas
Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net
December 11th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
At this point the problem is process because the government depends on the singular American's ignorance of the law and procedure to perfect their imperfect process in court.
The law requires the BMV to conduct a hearing before suspending or sanctioning a right or privilege. The government skips this hearing which is a failure to exhaust administrative remedies and which is a violation of procedural due process.
When Americans take the time to open the law books and read them with comprehension therein they will find the way malum prohibita laws are prosecuted violate due process rights of individuals. Or they can forever suffer the unsufferable adminstrative tyranny being foisted upon them by the government.
December 12th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
It is well settled that to punish a person for exercising a constitutional right is “a due process violation of the most basic sort.” … Moreover, it is constitutionally impermissible for a trial court to impose a more severe sentence because the defendant has chosen to stand trial rather than plead guilty…. It is also clear that under appropriate circumstances, a defendant may receive a more severe sentence because the trial may reveal more adverse information about him than was previously known. However, a court may not impose a sentence that conflicts with a defendant's exercise of his constitutional right to a jury trial. (Citations omitted.)
Walker v. State (1983), 454 N.E.2d 425, 429, trans. denied
December 13th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Wrong!
December 13th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Matthew, get a grip on yourself! Breathe in….ahhhhh!
Now for reality, sit down, Matthew: 1) Traffic Court as well as any other court is expected to dispense a penalty (in addition to non-suspendable court costs in civil actions). 2) The judge has discretion within the parameters of law to issue a fitting punishment for the infraction. 3) In all courts, the “fine beyond court cost” exists in Indiana, because the LAW REQUIRES IT! 4) Would you like some cheese with your whine?
-Facts, sir. That's what I brought to the table. What do you have besides whining?
December 13th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Oh, anon/Jocelyn.
You still have yet to be able to defend the practice of closed courts. Of course you can't. Strange how you skip that.
LEO decide the charge and the citation in traffic court, that's how it works. If you believe otherwise is something I could care less about. The judge should not adjust the LEO's citation.
Win any elections lately?
December 13th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
ha ha ha, Matthew! There is no closed court, Matthew, we have a “humane court” (as you call it). The “humane court” adheres to fire code and stops letting people inside when it is at capacity.
Anyone who wants to see the court proceedings may arrive early and wait in line for a premier seat inside. Anyone who wants a transcript of the court proceedings may purchase it upon proper motion. You see, Matthew, the court is open and all actions are public record that the public may access.
December 13th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Jocelyn, Article I, Section 12, of the Indiana Constitution. “All courts shall be open.” It's in plain English. Similar language is used to describe that meetings of the state legislator also be open to the public. But day in, day out, the court doors are locked.
No wonder you've never won an election. You haven't even read the Indiana Constitution.
Yes, it's an inhumane and unfair practice to keep citizens in a courtroom for hours on end and not letting them leave (unless they want a default judgement against them) and LEOs get a call to come up when their case is ready, coming and going at their pleasure.
No one is asking for special treatment, but the judiciary should not be giving favoritism to the executive branch. Again, picking up a constitution and reading that might help.
Again, showing your ignorance. The deputy at Traffic Court announces that anyone not there as part of the case may be fined and arrested. Arriving early, on time, or alte won't matter because you won't get in.
So why don't you post under your real name?
December 14th, 2009 at 5:08 am
Matt,
The problem with your argument is that “the courts shall be open” is subject to interpretation.
Does that mean the courts have to be open 24 hours a day? Can a judge never clear a courtroom when it becomes disorderly?
What if there are two many people in the room?
Plenty of questions and Paul's lawsuit falls short on answers.
December 14th, 2009 at 5:52 am
It seems to me that the door baliff specifically says that only defendants and their attorneys are to be allowed in.
.
And calling those plastic and steel chairs “premier seating” is just too funny to refute.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:08 am
Abdul, I'm still waiting on your retraction so you can correct the horribly misleading last paragraph.
What you have raised is nothing short is laughable. 24 hours a day? Never clear a court? What legal precedence does any of that hold?
I can tell you one thing that “All courts shall be open” does not mean, and that's how Traffic Court currently operates.
BTW Abdul, you misquoted the Indiana Constitution.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:17 am
I'm not retracting anything! You don't like it start your own blog.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:48 am
So you stand by your statement that I was pullled over and ticketed for not wearing my seat belt?
December 14th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
I don't believe you TA. Either you admitted to that & got a break or I think you are fibbing…if you provide cause number, I'll make a public records request to verify with the officer.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:37 am
Matthew,
Even if you win your case it won't end the traffic ticket scam. What will, and is fatal to the prosecution is “lack of subject matter jurisdiction” of the court because according to the “doctrine of primary jurisdiction” the BMV as the complaining agency has primary jurisdiction therefore it is required by law (Indiana Rules and Procedure Act) to conduct a hearing before proceeding into a judical court. Proper objection to the skipping of the required BMV hearing is by Trial Rule 12b(1) and can be done pre trial.
“A party’s failure to exhaust its administrative remedies creates a jurisdictional defect and makes a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction appropriate.” Matonovich, 691 N.E.2d at 1328-29.
In the case of traffic tickets the government has failed to exhaust its' administrative remedies by skipping the agency hearing as required by law. Subject matter jurisidciton can be raised anytime before, during or after trial and is fatal to prosecution. If you want we can discuss this further here or privately but imo you are putting the horse before the cart.
December 15th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Matthew,
Even if you win your case it won't end the traffic ticket scam. What will, and is fatal to the prosecution is “lack of subject matter jurisdiction” of the court because according to the “doctrine of primary jurisdiction” the BMV as the complaining agency has primary jurisdiction therefore it is required by law (Indiana Rules and Procedure Act) to conduct a hearing before proceeding into a judical court. Proper objection to the skipping of the required BMV hearing is by Trial Rule 12b(1) and can be done pre trial.
“A party’s failure to exhaust its administrative remedies creates a jurisdictional defect and makes a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction appropriate.” Matonovich, 691 N.E.2d at 1328-29.
In the case of traffic tickets the government has failed to exhaust its' administrative remedies by skipping the agency hearing as required by law. Subject matter jurisidciton can be raised anytime before, during or after trial and is fatal to prosecution. If you want we can discuss this further here or privately but imo you are putting the horse before the cart.