Learn These Ticket-Fighting Techniques...Almost 100% Fool-Proof!

[Stephen W.]

<snip>
If the officer is a no show the charge will be dismissed as the officer is necessary for evidence.

No, it’s not an automatic dismissal if the officer is a no show. The crown may ask for a new date or the J.P. can do so on his own.
I suggest everyone spend a couple of days observing traffic court. It’s very educational and more entertaining than those reality court shows. Believe me!

 

[geoff-9]

Very rarely maybe, there is so many cases in Toronto there not going to reschedule unless there is a very good reason, criminal cases get dismissed if officers dont show so why would they bother for a speeding ticket.

 

[RandomHero]

You can just walk in on random court cases?

 

[FitzR6]

Thanks for sharing. Good thread.

 

[Pegassus]

You can just walk in on random court cases?

You can walk in and sit in murder trials if there's seats available, its a democracy and the courts have to be open.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

You can walk in and sit in murder trials if there's seats available, its a democracy and the courts have to be open.

Actually no, they don't. There are cases in which the court is closed.

 

[Stephen W.]

Well, yes and no. There are “Closed to the Public” trails but, there are many proceedings that are open. Back in the seventies I worked at the WhitbyCourt House, 605 Rossland Road East. We use to sit in all many of trails during our breaks.

I was referring to traffic court though which is open. However, there are protocols to follow on entering, exiting and while observing.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Well, yes and no. There are “Closed to the Public” trails but, there are many proceedings that are open. Back in the seventies I worked at the WhitbyCourt House, 605 Rossland Road East. We use to sit in all many of trails during our breaks.

I was referring to traffic court though which is open. However, there are protocols to follow on entering, exiting and while observing.

I was commenting on Pegassus's comment that you can even sit in on a murder trial. While you can, if the court is open, it frequently isn't. I was a witness in a THEFT AND POSSESSION case, that was a closed court.

 

[MarcosSantiago]

Oh, there are more…</SPAN>

</SPAN></SPAN>Running a Red Light - MOVING VIOLATION

Details: I entered an intersection when it was amber, the lights changed to red 1/3 way through the intersection. An officer travelling in the opposite lane saw this and pulled a u-turn and proceeded with a traffic stop.</SPAN>

</SPAN></SPAN>
My only comment here is to be really careful. Running a red light is taking your chances that someone may get hurt. It goes back to </SPAN></SPAN>learning how, when, and where to speed. If you run a red light and kill someone, getting a ticket will be the least of your concerns. I know that it happens all the time, all over the place. But this is one decision that can have extremely serious consequences.</SPAN>

</SPAN></SPAN>Improper use of HOV lane - MOVING VIOLATION **one of the most difficult tickets to fight**
Details: I entered the HOV tunnel at 404 and 401 with one person (myself) a HOV check was setup that day and they gave me a ticket for improper use of HOV lanes.</SPAN>

</SPAN></SPAN>

The HOV is very difficult to win, and he did it on a technicality (lack of disclosure). Lucky!</SPAN>



</SPAN>

 

[Pegassus]

More guidelines about ticket fighting from the same person;


I received sufficient disclosure, now what?

Review the material. Is it Complete? Is everything accurate (the cops notes detailing what happened that day)? Are you able to read the cops notes? If not, did your request include to have his notes typed up?

If you answer No to any of the above items and you still have months before you trial, send another disclosure request specifically stating what you require. If you have a month or less before your trial begins, then you should focus on submitting an application to stay your trial due to Improper Disclosure.

If everything in disclosure looks satisfactory, then you will need to spend some time preparing a defence to your charge. If you need assistance here, post a reply in this thread.

What can I expect to happen at trial?

On the day of trial, you and others will have their trials within the same Court Session. When you arrive at the court house, you will see your name & docket number on a sheet on the wall. At the appropriate time, you and several others will enter the court room and sit. You will have the opportunity at that point to check around to see if the Police offer is there. Before the Justice enters the court room, the prosecutor will go around and ask each of you how you will plan to plead. The prosecutor will offer a plea deal if you tell him you plan to plead not-guilty.

When the Justice enters the court room, Justice/prosecutor will deal with all the guilty pleas. Once complete, the prosecutor at this point will drop all charges for the not-guilty pleas for which the police officer is NOT present. Then they will deal with the rest off the not-guilty pleas (those who request a trial).

When it is your turn. The Justice will ask what you plea (here you will have another opportunity to change to a guilty plea or you tell the Justice you plead Not Guilty and your trial begins.

-------

REASONS TO "STAY" YOUR TRIAL OR HAVE YOUR CHARGES DROPPED BEFORE YOUR TRIAL BEGINS

1) You do not receive disclosure of the evidence against you

2) Your disclosure material is lacking the requested information

3) There has been 10 months or more since you received the ticket to your trial date

4) There is a Fatal Flaw on the ticket itself

5) The Police Officer is not present at your trial

6) The city did not file your parking ticket with the court within 75 Days

7) The Police Officer did NOT affixed a parking ticket to your vehicle nor hand it to you in person

Parking Ticket

Before the prosecutor rests his case during your trial, he must present ALL 3 of the following pieces of evidence against you to the Justice - Motion of Non-Suit if any piece is missing:
1) Evidence of the ownership of your vehicle
2) Certificate of parking infraction
3) Notice of Trial (The letter they sent to you informing you of your trial date) - This is usually forgotten by the prosecutor

-------

WHAT TO ARGUE IN COURT? - You should keep in mind STRICT LIABILITY

You will have months to prepare a defense. As I've already mentioned many times already, the first thing you should do as soon as you receive notice of trial, is to request disclosure of the evidence against you. If you happen to get sufficient disclosure, doesn't mean you should give up/accept a plea.

You should make notes when you receive a traffic ticket to remind yourself of what happened that day. Did you take reasonable steps to avoid the offence? Did you believe you were NOT committing an offence? If so, then it may not be difficult to prove as you may think.

By default, all offences are a "STRICT LIABILITY" offence. You will receive a NOT GUILTY verdict if you're successful in arguing due diligence. To argue due diligence, you must show that you took all reasonable care to avoid committing the offence.

-------

WHEN YOU SHOULD DO NOTHING (Don't Pay Fine, Don't Request A Trial)

1) Incorrect Fine

2) Parking Tickets

 

[MarcosSantiago]

More guidelines about ticket fighting from the same person;

...
...
...

Instead of copy and paste, just post the links - we all have access to Red Flag Deals .com, you know?

!

 

[Pegassus]

Well, yes and no. There are “Closed to the Public” trails but, there are many proceedings that are open. Back in the seventies I worked at the WhitbyCourt House, 605 Rossland Road East. We use to sit in all many of trails during our breaks.

I was referring to traffic court though which is open. However, there are protocols to follow on entering, exiting and while observing.

I have nothing to do tomorrow. Do you know what court I can to Toronto on a Thursday and watch criminal cases as they are debated?

 

[statsman]

Sorry to burst your bubble but impaired and over 80 are criminal charges.
The JP can't reduce them to an HTA offence because a JP won't be hearing the case.
A judge will.
A conviction also carries a criminal record.

 

[statsman]

I have nothing to do tomorrow. Do you know what court I can to Toronto on a Thursday and watch criminal cases as they are debated?

Provincial criminal courthouses are at Old City Hall and College Park downtown.
1000 Finch W. at Dufferin.
Finch just west of Hwy. 400
Scarborough court is on the south side of Eglinton just east of Warden.

Set date court starts at 9AM.
All other courts (including bail court) starts at 10.

 

[Salos Dafee]

At all types of court, the issue of "hearsay evidence" can be important.

A definition: I can testify to what I saw. I can testify to what I smelled. But if I testify to words I heard, and the speaker of those words is absent or denies my testimony, then I have given hearsay evidence, and the court properly ignores it (and asks jurors to ignore it too).

How can this matter? Here is how it mattered to me. I got a ticket for parking in a "Snow Emergency" zone during a "Snow Emergency". It was a costly ticket then (about 1980) and it would probably be much more costly nowadays.

Maybe the cop won't show up. He did.

Maybe the cop will leave out the date or time or place or something else vital to the crown's case. Nope, he gave good testimony.

I said, "How did you know that a Snow Emergency was in effect?"
He replied, "My Sergeant told me."
The magistrate took over for me, to my astonishment. He asked, "Is your Sergeant in this courtroom?" The answer was negative.

The magistrate told the cop he could go and sit down. This action was my clue to stay silent, and I did!

The magistrate explained that the cop had given hearsay evidence, an account of what an absent person said. He said that the information given was vital to the crown's case, but could not be relied upon because it was hearsay, so he was dismissing the case against me. He went on to tear a strip off me for parking on Richmond Street during the winter's worst snowstorm, but that rolled off my back.

That is really the end of the story, and you may say the cop was stupid not to bring his sergeant along, but what if he had? The sergeant would corroborate the cop's words, then I would ask him, "How did you know there was a snow emergency at the time?"

Unless the whole chain of command had tagged along to the courtroom, I would eventually get the hearsay evidence dismissed. Of course, if the top banana had showed up and said, "Begorrah, I am the Lord High Pooh-Bah in charge of declaring Snow Emergencies, and I so declared!" then I would be found guilty.

If you treat these things as a game, sometimes a costly game, you can enjoy some of the process. I think my record is 11 trials, 8 dismissals.

I wish you better luck!

 

[jc100]

My record is zero trials, zero need....I really prefer my method.

 

[hedo2002]

Actually it was the crown that messed up, they should have had the paperwork stating that a snow emergency had been declared. No need for the "entire chain of command to attend court".

hearsay evidence is not quite as clear cut and dry as this. As an officer, you are permitted to testify as to what you are told in some cases. IE I could testify. I conducted an investigation based upon a statement given to me by the victim or a witness. For example an officer can testify, I was advised by the victim that the subject, was driving erratically, just before they hit the victims car. So in your case had the officer "properly" testified that he was aware that a snow emergency was in effect as a result of being advised by his supervisor, then that is not hearsay, but rather a fact. You would have lost your case.

It is a small but important semantic of the justice system.

I agree with JC100 there is only ONE 100% "fool proof" way to avoid a conviction, drive within reason and appropriately and you will never find yourself in a court room. 100% certainty of NO convictions nor wasted time, "hoping" for a dismissal.

At all types of court, the issue of "hearsay evidence" can be important.

A definition: I can testify to what I saw. I can testify to what I smelled. But if I testify to words I heard, and the speaker of those words is absent or denies my testimony, then I have given hearsay evidence, and the court properly ignores it (and asks jurors to ignore it too).

How can this matter? Here is how it mattered to me. I got a ticket for parking in a "Snow Emergency" zone during a "Snow Emergency". It was a costly ticket then (about 1980) and it would probably be much more costly nowadays.

Maybe the cop won't show up. He did.

Maybe the cop will leave out the date or time or place or something else vital to the crown's case. Nope, he gave good testimony.

I said, "How did you know that a Snow Emergency was in effect?"
He replied, "My Sergeant told me."
The magistrate took over for me, to my astonishment. He asked, "Is your Sergeant in this courtroom?" The answer was negative.

The magistrate told the cop he could go and sit down. This action was my clue to stay silent, and I did!

The magistrate explained that the cop had given hearsay evidence, an account of what an absent person said. He said that the information given was vital to the crown's case, but could not be relied upon because it was hearsay, so he was dismissing the case against me. He went on to tear a strip off me for parking on Richmond Street during the winter's worst snowstorm, but that rolled off my back.

That is really the end of the story, and you may say the cop was stupid not to bring his sergeant along, but what if he had? The sergeant would corroborate the cop's words, then I would ask him, "How did you know there was a snow emergency at the time?"

Unless the whole chain of command had tagged along to the courtroom, I would eventually get the hearsay evidence dismissed. Of course, if the top banana had showed up and said, "Begorrah, I am the Lord High Pooh-Bah in charge of declaring Snow Emergencies, and I so declared!" then I would be found guilty.

If you treat these things as a game, sometimes a costly game, you can enjoy some of the process. I think my record is 11 trials, 8 dismissals.

I wish you better luck!

 

[sevet]

Well that's not absolutely 100% foolproof...a while back I pulled my driver's abstract for something else and realized there was a conviction entered against me that I had no clue happened. Had to jump through some hoops (of course created by various incompetent people) to figure out they wrongly put me into the system when it was someone with the same name. Not sure how that happened since we obviously have different birthdays and more importantly different driver's license numbers...

 

[yodude]

I agree with JC100 there is only ONE 100% "fool proof" way to avoid a conviction, drive within reason and appropriately and you will never find yourself in a court room. 100% certainty of NO convictions nor wasted time, "hoping" for a dismissal.

..+1

 

[Ron Harper]

Bro, no insurance is NOT a criminal offense. Falls under HTA.

Operate M/V - No Insurance, does not fall under the HTA. It is issued under section 2(1)(a) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.