Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[blaydRnr]

Oh, I would have given you a ticket for passing on the right, I would have cared less if you signed it or not. All your signing is acknowledging receiving  the ticket nothing more. So wether you sign or not makes no difference to the outcome .

hahaha...then why didn't he just pass me the ticket?....because all i had to do was deny ever receiving it! 

[Sandman]

I guess it is for guys like you ?

I have another friend. He had a serious heart attack requiring major surgery while he was vacationing in Southern California. He is from the lower mainland and had no current travellers health insurance.

The hospital bill was approx 125k....  The hopspital informed him after finding out he had no insurance that they had a charity that was perhaps willing to cover all or part of the bill.
My friend informed the administrators that they should use it for someone who really needs it. He cut a cheque for the full amount.

I guess he is stupid as well ?

You sound like a real standup guy AF... Eagle food...

Come on Blue, you have got to admit, leaving your bank card anywhere with the PIN attached is a pretty foolish move.  You are never supposed to have the PIN and the Card in the same place.  That is a real no brainer.

[bluesteele]

Sorry blaydRnr but you dont have to sign the ticket. The officer signs the ticket and you are considered served.

[bluesteele]

Come on Blue, you have got to admit, leaving your bank card anywhere with the PIN attached is a pretty foolish move.  You are never supposed to have the PIN and the Card in the same place.  That is a real no brainer.

Damn rights Sandman it was stupid and he admits it.  But it was not about the money to him. The problem is one lie leads to another. The police report states the time the truck was stolen. The thieves immediately began using the card.(obviously) all times of these transactions are recorded. He took the high road as he did not want anything to come back on him as he is in a position of authority 

[blaydRnr]

Sorry blaydRnr but you dont have to sign the ticket. The officer signs the ticket and you are considered served.

for what?  hurting his ego?...like i said, he had no call to ticket me in the first place.

[Sandman]

for what?  hurting his ego?...like i said, he had no call to ticket me in the first place.

Hence your analogy is a Red Herring.  The officer (in the scenario you described) had no call to ticket you (not that I can see), as you are permitted to pass a vehicle on the right if you have a clear lane of traffic.  The regulations regarding approaching emergency vehicles state that the vehicle must have lights and audible signal (siren) at which time you are compelled to pull over to the right and stop until the vehicle passes, or slow and pass with care (if the emergency vehicle is stopped), yet you say his lights were not on.  Furthermore, the officer would have been compelled himself to travel in the right hand lane since he was traveling slower than the normal speed of the traffic at the time (as you described), so he himself was in violation of the MVA since he is only permitted to exercise his exemptions under the MVA when considering the use of his vehicle at the time (ie: he may exceed the speed limit to respond to an emergency but may not exceed the speed limit to get to the bank before it closes).  Therefore, he should have moved over the to right lane, and allowed you (and all the vehicles behind you) to pass him on the left.  Am am not sure than what regulation under the MVA he was even citing in the ticket.  In any case, you are of course in the right to dispute the ticket (signed or not) if you were not committing an offense under the MVA. 

That is the Red Herring.

baowu2 is not in the same position as his is guilty of committing the offense for which he was ticketed.

[blaydRnr]

baowu2 is not in the same position as his is guilty of committing the offense for which he was ticketed.

yes his offense had already been established and not contradicted...what was originally in question was the inconsistency of the department's manner of restitution...to have given others the opportunity to make amends where baowu2 was denied shows disregard for the judicial system itself.

[Sandman]

yes his offense had already been established and not contradicted...what was originally in question was the inconsistency of the department's manner of restitution...to have given others the opportunity to make amends where baowu2 was denied shows disregard for the judicial system itself.

I guess I just do not see it the same way.  I guess what you are arguing is for Article 97 to be removed altogether, as a few CO's have chosen not to enforce it, as was the case with Mr. 420247, and baowu2's "couple of friends . . .[that] were in the same situation" and had their tickets for failing "to present a valid license" removed after faxing their licenses (although I suspect that his friends had been issued "fishing without a license" tickets, not "failing to produce a license").  Since these officers have "shown a disregard for the judicial system itself" by failing to enforce the law which they are charged with enforcing, we should now remove the law to be fair to everyone else (what is the point in having Article 97 ("failing to provide a valid license") in the first place, if all you have to do is produce the license later at your convenience).  If the CO had issued you a "fishing without a license" citation, did the paperwork for that citation (in case you do NOT fax it in), and then you DID fax the license, so he then has to shred that paperwork once you faxed it,  his time (and wages) for that work done on that citation is now wasted (all because you forgot to bring your license with you). The $105 fine for failing to produce a valid license is to encourage license holders to carry their licenses so CO's are not wasting time (and taxpayers' dollars) doing that wasted paperwork on your citation.  In point of fact, the CO should have issued citations for both offenses, but as I said, he showed some discretion by taking baowu2's word for it that he had the license at home.  He saved the taxpayers some money by not citing him for fishing without a license, but he was clearly sending him a message that he needs to remember to bring that license so as not to waste the CO's time (and taxpayers' money).

 Even still,  getting rid of the law because someone gets cut a break is not really an option.  Can I say I should not be given a speeding ticket because I know many officers have let people off with just a warning?    While I agree that the law needs to be fair to everyone, and "should" be enforced without bias.  I would not want to rule out my opportunity to plead with the officer to not ticket me for that barbed hook, as I was clearly interested in following the law (the fly I was presently using was barbless after all).  That officer took the hard line and said the law is the law and you broke it so I have to ticket you.  While I accepted the fact that I broke the law, I was still hopeful he would use his discretion and not ticket me (unfortunately for me, he chose to enforce the law and ticket me).  However, I would not want to rule out the hope he would cut me some slack and let me off.  I would definitely not want the fact that if he DID let me off with a warning that time,  he must now no longer issue a ticket for using barbed hooks, just because the future offender says "oh, I just forgot this one time, I usually use barbless hooks, and I know a guy that. . ."  The CO's job is hard enough.  If you break the law, even by "accident", by all means plead for leniency, plead for understanding, but do not blame the CO for enforcing the law.

[blaydRnr]

I guess I just do not see it the same way.  I guess what you are arguing is for Article 97 to be removed altogether, as a few CO's have chosen not to enforce it, as was the case with Mr. 420247, and baowu2's "couple of friends . . .[that] were in the same situation" and had their tickets for failing "to present a valid license" removed after faxing their licenses (although I suspect that his friends had been issued "fishing without a license" tickets, not "failing to produce a license").    

no where did i say to remove the article from the regulations...i merely stated that every person has the right to be heard and accountability should be held at an even playing field...baowu2 might not get his ticket over turned, but he should at least have the opportunity to present a defense.

it would be like you buying something from the mall, then deciding to return it the next day not realizing you had forgotten your receipt at home...next thing you know a security guard mistaken you for a shoplifter...you can't blame the guy for doing his job, but at the same time you know you're innocent, so you would naturally plead your case.

not quite the same scenario, but the same underlying principle...so when you choose to deal with semantics rather than the issue of intent, then that's when justice becomes obscure.

[Sandman]

no where did i say to remove the article from the regulations...i merely stated that every person has the right to be heard and accountability should be held at an even playing field...baowu2 might not get his ticket over turned, but he should at least have the opportunity to present a defense.

it would be like you buying something from the mall, then deciding to return it the next day not realizing you had forgotten your receipt at home...next thing you know a security guard mistaken you for a shoplifter...you can't blame the guy for doing his job, but at the same time you know you're innocent, so you would naturally plead your case.

not quite the same scenario, but the same underlying principle...so when you choose to deal with semantics rather than the issue of intent, then that's when justice becomes obscure.

That I can relate to as it happened to me in my youth, only I did not forget my receipt, I presented the receipt when I exchanged a pair of jeans for a larger pair.  I was stopped on my way out of the store by the guard who accused me of sneaking in to the store without any jeans, taking two off the shelf and then exchanging one for the other (effectively getting a pair of jeans for free).  While a brilliant plan, it was not true, (I was not the shoplifting mastermind as I so appeared to him) and I had to plead my innocence.

But this example is of course another Red Herring.

As you said yourself, you plead your case because you are innocent.  baowu2 HAD "the opportunity to present a defense" when he appears in court to dispute the ticket.  However, he cannot dispute the ticket as he already admitted his guilt.  The only reason he can present why he should be let off the hook is because someone else was let off the hook when they were also guilty.  This is difficult to prove as there is no court record (if they never had the citation heard in court), and it would be costly to search the court records to find such a precedence (it is only a $105 fine after all, do you want to spend days pouring over court records to save $105 for a fine you deserved).

[alwaysfishn]

I guess it is for guys like you ?

I have another friend. He had a serious heart attack requiring major surgery while he was vacationing in Southern California. He is from the lower mainland and had no current travellers health insurance.

The hospital bill was approx 125k....  The hopspital informed him after finding out he had no insurance that they had a charity that was perhaps willing to cover all or part of the bill.
My friend informed the administrators that they should use it for someone who really needs it. He cut a cheque for the full amount.

I guess he is stupid as well ?

I would suggest he is an honorable man who put others needs ahead of his own.

It's unfortunate that he didn't have travel insurance, however if the heart problem was a pre-existing condition he wouldn't have qualified for travel insurance anyway.

[blaydRnr]

This is difficult to prove as there is no court record (if they never had the citation heard in court), and it would be costly to search the court records to find such a precedence (it is only a $105 fine after all, do you want to spend days pouring over court records to save $105 for a fine you deserved).

actually not true....just like where we are required to keep records and attain paper work...it is also a requirement for dfo....every ticket is numerated with a hard copy and must be accountable for audit or reference.

[Sandman]

actually not true....just like where we are required to keep records and attain paper work...it is also a requirement for dfo....every ticket is numerated with a hard copy and must be accountable for audit or reference.

Ah, but are you suggesting that DFO (or provincial COS staff) search their own records for you to find the evidence that you need to dispute a ticket they gave you so you do not have to pay a fine they want you to pay?  I did not say that the DFO or COS would not have records, I just do not think they are going to spend time and money searching their own records for you to dispute your ticket.  Perhaps you could make a FOIPA request, but you would need to know the specifics of what you are searching for.  The court records you can search yourself (or pay a lawyer to search), but as I said, there is no record if the case does not go to court.

[blaydRnr]

Ah, but are you suggesting that DFO (or provincial COS staff) search their own records for you to find the evidence that you need to dispute a ticket they gave you so you do not have to pay a fine they want you to pay?  I did not say that the DFO or COS would not have records, I just do not think they are going to spend time and money searching their own records for you to dispute your ticket.  Perhaps you could make a FOIPA request, but you would need to know the specifics of what you are searching for.  The court records you can search yourself (or pay a lawyer to search), but as I said, there is no record if the case does not go to court.

once again, i was specifically responding to your statement regarding the courts not having access to the citation in question... and not to blow things out of proportion, the courts can easily issue a subpoena which compels  DFO to submit documents or face penalties themselves...refusal of submission will automatically nullify the charges.

[Sandman]

once again, i was specifically responding to your statement regarding the courts not having access to the citation in question... and not to blow things out of proportion, the courts can easily issue a subpoena which compels  DFO to submit documents or face penalties themselves...refusal of submission will automatically nullify the charges.

Ah, but you would still need a specific citation for the court to request in the subpoena (the name of your friend who got the charge dropped perhaps?). However, you would probably need more than one to establish a breach of policy.  If you produce five cases where people were given tickets for not providing a license that were later dropped when the license was faxed in (and I would doubt you would have 5 specific cases to subpoena), but DFO then produces documentation of hundreds of tickets that were upheld even when proof of a ticket was provided later, then you have really not established unfair treatment on your part, as you were treated the same as the majority of the cases.  It was the 5 other cases where the policy was breached.  This is what I mean when I say that you cannot really expect to be left off the hook just because someone else was.  If an officer is in a good mood, or perhaps is just lazy and not interested in doing the paperwork, and lets you off the hook with a warning, you cannot use that to say it is policy to let everyone off the hook with a warning.  DFO may, however, go back and discipline those officers that had breached the policy and caused you to be such a thorn in their side.