Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

andres3

Better than going to old posts, I dug up some old files, unfortuantely my "court file" is full of holes; getting new computers is always a hassle and over the years files have been lost..

I believe this is what I read/spoke in court on my motion hearing word for word:

Motion for Change of Venue

Your Honor, I request a change of venue to the Municipal Court at the county seat. I am making this request at, during, and/or prior to arraignment, as required by Penal Code Section 1462.2. However, due to the added complexities of my case, I first motion the court for dismissal, with change of venue as the alternative. The legal basis for my request is stated in my Declaration and Points and Authorities your Honor has on file.

andres3

Here's my only winning trial by declaration/mail of all-time:

Attachment #1A

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Pursuant to vehicle code 40902, I wish to exercise my right to trial by declaration with regard to a vehicle code infraction citation. As required, I enclose a check for $148.00 bail. Please refund the same to me in the event the court finds me not guilty.

On January 26, 2006, at approximately 3:50 p.m., I was driving my 2003 Honda Accord LX Coupe, License No. 4ZXM826, south on 805 coming from Highway 56. My vehicle is dark gray in color (graphite). Please review attachment #1B, which contains a series of photographs along with a written description of what each photograph clearly demonstrates.

I have two main points of defense as follows:

1. Cited for vehicle code 21755VC violation, which never occurred according to the vehicle code’s very own definition, as I never “passed on shoulder.”
2. I never drove (and definitely didn’t pass anyone) on a shoulder, because the concrete lane I was in was an actual freeway lane and exit lane or off ramp.

First, the title of VC21755 is “pass on right safely,” or passing on shoulder as the officer wrote on my citation copy as the violation that allegedly occurred. This vehicle code does not apply to my case or to the situation that happened on 1/26/06. I never passed anyone on the right, I never passed anyone driving on the shoulder, and I never passed any vehicles on the freeway, period. I was planning on exiting the freeway at the next off ramp. I was already slowing down, as is the normal process in order to exit the freeway. You cannot pass people on the freeway when you are in the process of exiting the freeway, it just doesn’t make logical sense (you are headed different directions for one). Add to this that I had slowed down considerably, and you can know it is a fact that freeway traffic was moving faster than I was. The only vehicle I passed was the officer’s parked CHP car, and I passed it on the left as I merged carefully back onto the next lane over on the left in order to avoid a collision. I have a second attachment 1C that shows the address I was driving to and from where I came, which was 5951 Village Center Loop Road, right off of highway 56. I took the 805 South and was headed towards 9823 Pacific Heights Blvd., therefore, the map indicated to me that I was to exit the 805 South at Mira Mesa Blvd/Sorrento Valley Road, which is the first thing I told the officer who was blocking the right lane with his vehicle (although he was not inside his vehicle). The fact of the matter is that I never passed anyone on the right, I had slowed down significantly, and I had every intention of exiting the freeway.

Secondly, I, along with every other reasonable driver, both in front and behind of me, felt that the right lane was indeed a lane, and not a shoulder based on the overwhelming visual evidence on the freeway. Any reasonable person would view the asphalt lane as the shoulder, the concrete lane as the far right lane, and that lane eventually becoming the exit only lane. Most drivers probably assumed the solid white line was there to indicate that it is an “exit only” lane, and that you should not re-merge back onto the freeway.

I would like your honor to know that I included every single rearview photograph taken within 5 minutes of receiving my citation. I did not take 40 or 50 photos and edit the best 3 or 4 rearview pictures for my defense. I included each and every single rear-facing picture I took, because I wanted to make it clear that without intending it, every single picture happened to capture another vehicle coming down the exact same lane the officer cited me for driving on, which he claims was a shoulder. There were no lane closure signs; even a semi-truck came down the exact same lane the officer claimed was a shoulder. Also, the lane in question goes straight into and directly onto the right most exit lane. There is no need to turn or change lanes; it simply is the same lane. I find it unreasonable to assume that all of these driver’s could have misinterpreted the freeway lanes. The officer incorrectly assumed it was a shoulder, and double-parked his vehicle alongside the white truck.

Therefore, in conclusion, I should be found not guilty due to the fact that I never placed my vehicle onto a shoulder, and I never passed any vehicles on the freeway, regardless of whether the lane I was in would be considered a shoulder or not. I was on a main traveled portion of the roadway (as indicated by all the traffic using that lane of the roadway in my pictures. Lastly, even if I did pass vehicles to my left (passing on right, which I state I didn’t), I did so in a safe manner and under conditions permitting such movement in safety. I believe I did nothing illegal, as my physical actions were no different than if someone had decided to pull over to change a flat tire, then changed their minds, and safely pulled back onto the freeway so that they could change their flat tire elsewhere.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date: April 12, 2006

andres3

Totally forgot about this!!! I guess my current pending case isn't the first time I had to FIGHT the system based on clerical errors in trying to run over people's rights, and due process!!!!

January 30, 2014

Presiding Judge
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego
Kearny Mesa Branch – Traffic/Minor Offense
8950 Clairemont Mesa Blvd.
San Diego, CA 92123-1187

To: Presiding Judge for Traffic Court

Re: Citation/Case Number 1471662 – Defendant: JOE COOL

I am writing the court today to have what I believe to have been a clerical error on the part of the Court in denying my Request for a Trial De Novo recently in case number 1471662.

Background Facts:

The clerk signed the certificate of mailing form TR-215 (Decision and Notice of Decision) as dated December, 31, 2013 on the case referenced above. The decision was postmarked January 2, 2014, most likely due to the Holiday at the New Year.

On January 17, 2014 the Defendant, Andres Dolson, completed a Request for a New Trial (Trial De Novo Form TR-220), and then proceeded to hand deliver the completed form to the Kearny Mesa Branch court on that same date at approximately 1:30 P.M. The defendant placed the form into an envelope provided at the outdoor drop-box by the front entrance doors to the court facility. The envelope was filled out by hand and I placed the date and time of the drop-off onto the envelope. If the court keeps the envelope on file, the court can confirm that I hand time-stamped the delivery at approximately 1:30 p.m. on 1/17/14 to the Request for a Trial De Novo. No electronic automatic stamp is provided at the court's outdoor drop-box.

On Friday, 17 January, the Court's business office has reduced hours, which is why I had fully and completely relied upon the court's outside exterior signage to follow directions and hand-in my request for a Trial De Novo in a timely fashion to meet all of the court's requirements by delivering the request well within the 20 days required from the clerk's certificate of mailing on the Trial By Declaration Decision. After depositing my delivery in the exterior drop-box outdoors, I noticed that although the business offices were closed due to reduced hours on Fridays, the court was still open for other matters such as Small Claims, and that the front doors were still open. It was then I noticed there was an indoor interior drop-box with an automatic electronic time stamp. Since I didn't have another copy of my TR-220 form, I time-stamped my court courtesy notice for this case/citation number to provide some proof that I was at the court on January 17, 2014 (see attachment “A” which is a 2 page copy of my time-stamped courtesy notice at January, 17, 2014 1:41 PM and 1:42 PM), taken just in case an unexpected adverse decision such as that provided on 1/23/14 was made by the court. I had no other business to drive over to the Kearny Mesa Branch, and be at the court on January 17 at approximately 1:41-1:42 PM other than to personally deliver my Request for a Trial De Novo Form TR-220 on the case number referenced above.




It should be noted that the outdoor drop-box has no such automatic time-stamp provided. However, I fully complied with the directions on the outdoor drop-boxes signage, which promises that if an item is deposited by 4:00 PM it will be considered as received by the court on that same business court date (see attachment “B” two photographs taken by me on 1/28/14 of the outdoor signage on the exterior drop-box in question). The directions on the signage are very clear, and based upon that it is certain that my delivery of the Request for a Trial De Novo should have been logged as received on January 17, 2014 by the court.

By my count 20 days after the Certificate of Mailing dated 12/31/13 would be 1/20/14, which was a Court Holiday. Even if the court logged my TR-220 submission as received on 1/21/14, it is my understanding that the request should have been granted as received on time due to that Holiday. I believe this is a possible cause of the error, since on 1/28/14 when I visited the court again to take photographs of the instructional signage on the court's drop-boxes, I noticed that there is a discrepancy as the interior drop-box has slightly different instruction than the exterior signage. The interior signage says if a submission is not time-stamped, that it will be logged as received on the following business/court date. The exterior drop box makes no mention of this as it specifically states same date regardless of whether it's stamped or not, nor does it make any exception or notation for shortened hours on Fridays. Form TR-220 also makes no mention of reduction to the 20 day time line due to potentially shortened hours on some court dates such as Fridays. The outdoor signage simply states that if an item is deposited by 4:00 PM on any court day Monday through Friday (which 17 January was in fact an active court date), then it will be logged as received on that same date. Therefore, since I relied upon and used only the exterior drop-box, the signage on that box is the one that should apply and take precedence in regards to this case.

Based on the above facts, the court should not have denied my Request for a New Trial (Trial De Novo) for the check marked reason of not having been received on time. Although the time-stamped courtesy notice is not definitive irrefutable proof the court received my Request for a Trial De Novo on 1/17/14, it is indeed powerful circumstantial evidence corroborating my story. I'm confident the request was received by the court 17 days after the court clerk's certificate of mailing. Please change the decision entered on the Form TR-225 dated 1/23/14, and grant my request for a new fair trial with the officer present so that I may face my accuser in a court of law. Also, please schedule my trial date and time.

Thank you, and Sincerely,



Joe Cool


Enclosures: Attachments A & B (3 pages).


Attachment B:

qbrozen

I'd rather pay and save myself all that time and aggravation

oldfarmer50

28firefighter said:

See Office Space: e.g. Milton

I vacationed on the beach where the final scene of that movie was filmed.

tommister2

oldfarmer50 said:

See Office Space: e.g. Milton

I vacationed on the beach where the final scene of that movie was filmed.

What beach is it?

driver100

jmonroe said:

berri said:

Well driver, I mentioned the Pacific Northwest first and the dinosaur extinction was believed to be caused by a meteor or some such colliding with earth or a giant volcanic eruption. Either way blacked out the skies for a long period of time. Personally, I like the Canadians I've met.

I bet you can't even name two of em.

jmonroe

Ab and me.

driver100

qbrozen said:

I'd rather pay and save myself all that time and aggravation

+1
Actually, I think the strategy is to wear the judge down so he throws up his hands and says "Out of my courtroom right now".

dino001

oldfarmer50 said:

Just saw an Audi commercial where a woman quits her job and goes out and buys an Audi SUV. Now maybe I'm out of touch with the younger generation but buying a $75,000 SUV when you have no job seems a bit reckless.

Maybe she has a rich uncle, or „uncle”. Either way, seem Audi is OK with it.

stickguy

I have not noticed in that past that the "snobby" Euro brands are shy about perpetuating certain stereotypes in their ads.

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

abacomike said:

andres3 said:

I think what my ticket stories above show is that law enforcement is pretty incompetent and inept when they try to enforce anything other than speed laws. They are very experienced and therefore, more competent with the speeding tickets. On my "maximum" speed violations, they for the most part have the upper hand, and were correct that I was speeding per the letter of the law. Basic speed law is different, and gives me a fighting chance.

Maybe there would be less stress in your life if you just slowed down a little so you wouldn’t have all these stories about beating tickets.  It would also relieve us of some stress by not having to read about your frequent interactions with law enforcement while driving your car! 

And that's exactly what I mean when I say slow down you'll live longer. Less stress overall doing so.

I think you guys missed the point of my long post. All those examples were things that didn't involve speed! Unless you consider a right turn at 1 MPH speed on a red light.

My point is that most, if not all, of your stories involved you getting pulled over for speeding. That is until you said most of your tickets were not for speeding and I called you on it.

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

fintail said:

If only the enforcement sector would go after or be told to go after more than simple speeders. The amount of "drivers" I see with phones in their hand, not signaling, violating green signaled crosswalks, turning into the wrong lane, etc is stupefying. Actually cracking down on more than speed might alleviate some stress from those who have to dodge idiots, especially on foot. On the other hand, this morning I saw a brave hardworking bootstrapper in a Tesla going maybe 60-70 in a 40, probably less likely to be nabbed for that than a 19 year old from a less affluent suburb speeding in a 20 year old Civic. But I guess that's how it goes, justice is not blind, they deserve the endless tax breaks, with more upcoming, as the entitled lucky ones like to lecture "life isn't fair", dopey libertarians will cry "class warfare!" if anyone questions this dumb status quo Given the perks and blind deference accumulated and held by the crime and punishment industry, no doubt even doubling the amount of citations would fail to fund that system. This isn't real world accountability. If speed demon's posts irk some, just skip them. It's not rocket surgery.

Most of us do not have any direct contact with traffic law inforcement activities because we obey or are in compliance with all traffic laws.  We don’t travel more than 3-5 mph over the speed limit; we stop at red lights and stop si.  Why?  Because they find the traffic laws too restricting for their driving preferences.  Tough, isn’t it!

If everyone obeyed the traffic laws, we would all be safer on the roads when we drive.  It’s because of those who violate traffic laws that accidents are on the rise.

Do we know what percentage of people are pulled over for each offense? We see someone pulled over so we automatically presume it's for speeding? How do we know it's not for cell phone use or not using turn signals or cutting someone off?

It's a pretty soild assumption when you see it happen in front/alongside/behind you. You are observing traffic, and you don't see any violations yourself, other than speeding, which everyone is doing, so when someone gets pulled over, pretty safe process of elmination. Also, if the fastest guy that just passed you gets pulled over, another prettty strong indicator.

As you say it is an assumption, you really have no idea why that person was pulled over. Maybe due to making unsafe lane changes, or not using signals, or on a cell phone, or expired plates, or having ketchup on your hotdog (illegal here in Chicago), or any other reason. 

ab348

The nice thing about binge-posting is that it lets you scroll through a whole pile of posts without reading them thanks to having the poster name in bold right up front.

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

andres3 said:

I just want to say for the record my attitude is not that you all should stay home and keep out of my way out on the roadway. Enjoy the road. Use it as you wish. You pay taxes too. But follow the rules of the road, and don't make victims of other people. That means: 1) don't impede traffic 2) don't be the cause of traffic 3) don't wreck damage other's personal property because see #1 and #2 above, in addition to victimizing them to your insurance company and a body shop. 4) If I see you force passes on the right I'll be just as mad at you for doing it to someone else as I am for doing it to me, if you do it to me.

andres3, I don't think I would enjoy being a passenger in your car. I would however enjoy being a Traffic Court Judge with you in front of me.

Remember, most honest people's only exposure to the Justice System is through Traffic Court. Handing down arbitrary and unfair rulings creates nothing but disrespect and contempt for those that make and enforce those laws, while simultaneously ignoring all the laws that don't fit their financial mission.

My experience is that the traffic courts tend to be somewhat fair and impartial. But then again I take responsibility for my actions. As for financial missions, most jurisdictions don't make money on traffic enforcement.

The problem is you don't have any experience with traffic courts. Furthermore, another problem is you don't have any experience with California Traffic Courts. When you say "taking responsibility for your actions" what you really mean to say is paying a fine regardless of whether you are guilty or not. As to not making money on traffic enforcement, that's another lauaghable lie, for if it were true, all the Traffic Courts in America wouldn't object to putting all traffic fine revenue for the current fiscal year into an account in my name. They should be able to run just fine off of tax payer dollars; they don't need the fine money; give it to me then.

I do have experience with traffic courts, but none recently. In my younger days I have had plenty.

As for paying fines regardless of whether I am guilty or not is outright wrong. I can honestly say that for all the times I was pulled over I was guilty of the offense that the officer pulled me over for with the exception on one time. That one time the officer was mistaken about my plates being expired and as he came to my window stated that he thought my plates were expired but saw the sticker clearer after I pulled over and saw that they were not. He let me go immediately without checking my license (which legally he couldn't do anyway). 

But every other time I was in the wrong, I knew I was in the wrong and I did make the decision to be in the wrong. Now if some cases I did not agree with the law, but that really is no excuse. So in these cases I owed up to what I did and took responsibility for my actions. I didnt try to justify my actions and play the victim.

And yes when you cost out the salary of the officer, those that support him or her, the salary of the judge and the clerk of the court and any bailiffs and all that support them in their traffic law enforcement pulse all the equipment and building space and all that supports that. pluse any benefits paid the fines usually don't add up to any amount that covers it. 

houdini1

These long, involved posts are examples of what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object. Fortunately we don't have to waste our time reading them.

berri

Well JM, if you want to name Canadians all you really need to do is look at the long list of entertainers from there

andres3

qbrozen said:

I'd rather pay and save myself all that time and aggravation

Most people do just pay; they count on that. Most States know not to be greedy, and keep fines low. CA is greedy; more people are fighting them. The courts are clogged with people fighting their tickets. Did I mention my next trial is in November; that was scheduled a while back too.

andres3

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

isellhondas said:

andres3 said:

I just want to say for the record my attitude is not that you all should stay home and keep out of my way out on the roadway.

Enjoy the road. Use it as you wish. You pay taxes too. But follow the rules of the road, and don't make victims of other people.

That means:
1) don't impede traffic
2) don't be the cause of traffic
3) don't wreck damage other's personal property because see #1 and #2 above, in addition to victimizing them to your insurance company and a body shop.
4) If I see you force passes on the right I'll be just as mad at you for doing it to someone else as I am for doing it to me, if you do it to me.

andres3, I don't think I would enjoy being a passenger in your car.

I would however enjoy being a Traffic Court Judge with you in front of me.

Remember, most honest people's only exposure to the Justice System is through Traffic Court. Handing down arbitrary and unfair rulings creates nothing but disrespect and contempt for those that make and enforce those laws, while simultaneously ignoring all the laws that don't fit their financial mission.

My experience is that the traffic courts tend to be somewhat fair and impartial. But then again I take responsibility for my actions. As for financial missions, most jurisdictions don't make money on traffic enforcement.

The problem is you don't have any experience with traffic courts.

Furthermore, another problem is you don't have any experience with California Traffic Courts.

When you say "taking responsibility for your actions" what you really mean to say is paying a fine regardless of whether you are guilty or not.

As to not making money on traffic enforcement, that's another lauaghable lie, for if it were true, all the Traffic Courts in America wouldn't object to putting all traffic fine revenue for the current fiscal year into an account in my name. They should be able to run just fine off of tax payer dollars; they don't need the fine money; give it to me then.

I do have experience with traffic courts, but none recently. In my younger days I have had plenty.

As for paying fines regardless of whether I am guilty or not is outright wrong. I can honestly say that for all the times I was pulled over I was guilty of the offense that the officer pulled me over for with the exception on one time. That one time the officer was mistaken about my plates being expired and as he came to my window stated that he thought my plates were expired but saw the sticker clearer after I pulled over and saw that they were not. He let me go immediately without checking my license (which legally he couldn't do anyway). 

But every other time I was in the wrong, I knew I was in the wrong and I did make the decision to be in the wrong. Now if some cases I did not agree with the law, but that really is no excuse. So in these cases I owed up to what I did and took responsibility for my actions. I didnt try to justify my actions and play the victim.

And yes when you cost out the salary of the officer, those that support him or her, the salary of the judge and the clerk of the court and any bailiffs and all that support them in their traffic law enforcement pulse all the equipment and building space and all that supports that. pluse any benefits paid the fines usually don't add up to any amount that covers it. 
______________

Even when your guilty, you still have a right to have the "People" prove their case beyond a resonable doubt.

There's also the 5th Amendment where you don't have to incriminate yourself. I see nothing wrong with forcing the State to do their job, and that is prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt with the Officer present. That goes to facing your accuser.

If it was important enough for them to waste your time to stop you and write you a citation, it should be important enough to show up in court, and follow all the rules, laws, and procedures properly to win a conviction. If the State has to trample on several laws and rights in order to win convictions, something is wrong. I don't have much of a problem with losing, but the playing field should appear to be fair and level. It does not appear that way.

The "clerical" errors that appear to be routine appear to me to not be "errors" at all, but designed to be subtle trampling of rights. Why are they so afraid of a fair trial? They will bend and/or break their own rules to avoid it. My letter telling them they were wrong in denying a Trial De Novo based on the 20-day time rule was a perfect example.

My current open case where they wanted to ignore the citation and hold an appearance at a random court of THEIR choosing without giving me reasonable notification or communication and response, is another great example. Why are they so afraid of going by the book?

Also, the fine revenue is more than a drop in the bucket. Remember, the fine isn't the only part of the citation. In CA, you pay more in fees and penalties than the original fine. They do this to avoid challenges to another right, and that is Cruel and Unusual Punishment. By not calling it a "fine" apparently the State thinks it's not a punishment.

andres3

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

abacomike said:

andres3 said:

I think what my ticket stories above show is that law enforcement is pretty incompetent and inept when they try to enforce anything other than speed laws. They are very experienced and therefore, more competent with the speeding tickets. On my "maximum" speed violations, they for the most part have the upper hand, and were correct that I was speeding per the letter of the law. Basic speed law is different, and gives me a fighting chance.

Maybe there would be less stress in your life if you just slowed down a little so you wouldn’t have all these stories about beating tickets.  It would also relieve us of some stress by not having to read about your frequent interactions with law enforcement while driving your car! 

And that's exactly what I mean when I say slow down you'll live longer. Less stress overall doing so.

I think you guys missed the point of my long post. All those examples were things that didn't involve speed! Unless you consider a right turn at 1 MPH speed on a red light.

My point is that most, if not all, of your stories involved you getting pulled over for speeding. That is until you said most of your tickets were not for speeding and I called you on it.

Yes, and you were proven wrong and mistaken on that point.

andres3

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

fintail said:

If only the enforcement sector would go after or be told to go after more than simple speeders. The amount of "drivers" I see with phones in their hand, not signaling, violating green signaled crosswalks, turning into the wrong lane, etc is stupefying. Actually cracking down on more than speed might alleviate some stress from those who have to dodge idiots, especially on foot.

On the other hand, this morning I saw a brave hardworking bootstrapper in a Tesla going maybe 60-70 in a 40, probably less likely to be nabbed for that than a 19 year old from a less affluent suburb speeding in a 20 year old Civic. But I guess that's how it goes, justice is not blind, they deserve the endless tax breaks, with more upcoming, as the entitled lucky ones like to lecture "life isn't fair", dopey libertarians will cry "class warfare!" if anyone questions this dumb status quo

Given the perks and blind deference accumulated and held by the crime and punishment industry, no doubt even doubling the amount of citations would fail to fund that system. This isn't real world accountability.

If speed demon's posts irk some, just skip them. It's not rocket surgery.

abacomike said:

Most of us do not have any direct contact with traffic law inforcement activities because we obey or are in compliance with all traffic laws.  We don’t travel more than 3-5 mph over the speed limit; we stop at red lights and stop si.  Why?  Because they find the traffic laws too restricting for their driving preferences.  Tough, isn’t it!

If everyone obeyed the traffic laws, we would all be safer on the roads when we drive.  It’s because of those who violate traffic laws that accidents are on the rise.

Do we know what percentage of people are pulled over for each offense? We see someone pulled over so we automatically presume it's for speeding? How do we know it's not for cell phone use or not using turn signals or cutting someone off?

It's a pretty soild assumption when you see it happen in front/alongside/behind you. You are observing traffic, and you don't see any violations yourself, other than speeding, which everyone is doing, so when someone gets pulled over, pretty safe process of elmination. Also, if the fastest guy that just passed you gets pulled over, another prettty strong indicator.

As you say it is an assumption, you really have no idea why that person was pulled over. Maybe due to making unsafe lane changes, or not using signals, or on a cell phone, or expired plates, or having ketchup on your hotdog (illegal here in Chicago), or any other reason. 

That's not true. I have these things called eyeballs, two of them, and they work great. I also have superior powers of observation while I"m driving. I'd have noticed an unsafe lane change, not using signals, or cell phone use in many cases, if they had occurred. Expires plates, I'm not paying attention for that, as it doesn't affect my safety. How would the Officer know that from their typical hidden positions? License plate readers? Would they pull someone over for only that reason without being certain their records are not faulty? Seems very far-fetched.

I think we all know all those other reasons are a mere statistical blip on what is usually going on out there.

Mr_Shiftright

snakeweasel said:

henryn said:

I'm going to say 1958 Buick. It's been a lot of years now, but my older brother towned one of these in 1966 or thereabout.

We have another winner, it's a 58 Buick Limited. 

OK one more;




That's a 1955 Studebaker President.

Mr_Shiftright

qbrozen said:

I'd rather pay and save myself all that time and aggravation

Yep, pay up go to traffic school and be done with it.

henryn

To the mods: I am now in agreement, we really do need an ignore button.

Mr_Shiftright

You have one, but it's marked "scroll" on your mouse on it's an up/down motion on your touchpad.

andres3

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

isellhondas said:

andres3 said:

I just want to say for the record my attitude is not that you all should stay home and keep out of my way out on the roadway.

Enjoy the road. Use it as you wish. You pay taxes too. But follow the rules of the road, and don't make victims of other people.

That means:
1) don't impede traffic
2) don't be the cause of traffic
3) don't wreck damage other's personal property because see #1 and #2 above, in addition to victimizing them to your insurance company and a body shop.
4) If I see you force passes on the right I'll be just as mad at you for doing it to someone else as I am for doing it to me, if you do it to me.

andres3, I don't think I would enjoy being a passenger in your car.

I would however enjoy being a Traffic Court Judge with you in front of me.

Remember, most honest people's only exposure to the Justice System is through Traffic Court. Handing down arbitrary and unfair rulings creates nothing but disrespect and contempt for those that make and enforce those laws, while simultaneously ignoring all the laws that don't fit their financial mission.

My experience is that the traffic courts tend to be somewhat fair and impartial. But then again I take responsibility for my actions. As for financial missions, most jurisdictions don't make money on traffic enforcement.

The problem is you don't have any experience with traffic courts.

Furthermore, another problem is you don't have any experience with California Traffic Courts.

When you say "taking responsibility for your actions" what you really mean to say is paying a fine regardless of whether you are guilty or not.

As to not making money on traffic enforcement, that's another lauaghable lie, for if it were true, all the Traffic Courts in America wouldn't object to putting all traffic fine revenue for the current fiscal year into an account in my name. They should be able to run just fine off of tax payer dollars; they don't need the fine money; give it to me then.

I do have experience with traffic courts, but none recently. In my younger days I have had plenty.

As for paying fines regardless of whether I am guilty or not is outright wrong. I can honestly say that for all the times I was pulled over I was guilty of the offense that the officer pulled me over for with the exception on one time. That one time the officer was mistaken about my plates being expired and as he came to my window stated that he thought my plates were expired but saw the sticker clearer after I pulled over and saw that they were not. He let me go immediately without checking my license (which legally he couldn't do anyway). 

But every other time I was in the wrong, I knew I was in the wrong and I did make the decision to be in the wrong. Now if some cases I did not agree with the law, but that really is no excuse. So in these cases I owed up to what I did and took responsibility for my actions. I didnt try to justify my actions and play the victim.

And yes when you cost out the salary of the officer, those that support him or her, the salary of the judge and the clerk of the court and any bailiffs and all that support them in their traffic law enforcement pulse all the equipment and building space and all that supports that. pluse any benefits paid the fines usually don't add up to any amount that covers it. 

They should just donate the fine revenue to lowering taxes then. Maybe a tax rebate account.

jmonroe

driver100 said:

jmonroe said:

berri said:

Well driver, I mentioned the Pacific Northwest first and the dinosaur extinction was believed to be caused by a meteor or some such colliding with earth or a giant volcanic eruption. Either way blacked out the skies for a long period of time. Personally, I like the Canadians I've met.

I bet you can't even name two of em.

jmonroe

Ab and me.

I wasn't talking to a self-admiring hornblower. :@

jmonroe

jmonroe

berri said:

Well JM, if you want to name Canadians all you really need to do is look at the long list of entertainers from there

Well, one tries to be an "entertainer" whereas the other has posts with content.

jmonroe

jmonroe

Hey hosts, how did I get a new mug shot? How am I supposed to find myself in here now? :@

jmonroe

jmonroe

Mr_Shiftright said:

You have one, but it's marked "scroll" on your mouse on it's an up/down motion on your touchpad.

That sounds like a ringing endorsement for members to sign up for the "Edmunds Premium Dues Package". I signed up last year when you guys ran a promotional offer. Isn't it time to give the other guys in here a break and offer it again?

jmonroe

Mr_Shiftright

jmonroe said:

Hey hosts, how did I get a new mug shot? How am I supposed to find myself in here now? :@

jmonroe

I think it's rather flattering.

tbirdmarco

 I always say take with the media and politicians say with a big big queen of salt. Who knows what’s true and what’s not and all these studies too. I’ve been enjoying reading everything in here. Rainy day outside wanted to get out side not today. Rain is been pouring on and off here. I guess tomorrow should be a lot nicer. 

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

andres3 said:

andres3 said:

I just want to say for the record my attitude is not that you all should stay home and keep out of my way out on the roadway. Enjoy the road. Use it as you wish. You pay taxes too. But follow the rules of the road, and don't make victims of other people. That means: 1) don't impede traffic 2) don't be the cause of traffic 3) don't wreck damage other's personal property because see #1 and #2 above, in addition to victimizing them to your insurance company and a body shop. 4) If I see you force passes on the right I'll be just as mad at you for doing it to someone else as I am for doing it to me, if you do it to me.

andres3, I don't think I would enjoy being a passenger in your car. I would however enjoy being a Traffic Court Judge with you in front of me.

Remember, most honest people's only exposure to the Justice System is through Traffic Court. Handing down arbitrary and unfair rulings creates nothing but disrespect and contempt for those that make and enforce those laws, while simultaneously ignoring all the laws that don't fit their financial mission.

My experience is that the traffic courts tend to be somewhat fair and impartial. But then again I take responsibility for my actions. As for financial missions, most jurisdictions don't make money on traffic enforcement.

The problem is you don't have any experience with traffic courts. Furthermore, another problem is you don't have any experience with California Traffic Courts. When you say "taking responsibility for your actions" what you really mean to say is paying a fine regardless of whether you are guilty or not. As to not making money on traffic enforcement, that's another lauaghable lie, for if it were true, all the Traffic Courts in America wouldn't object to putting all traffic fine revenue for the current fiscal year into an account in my name. They should be able to run just fine off of tax payer dollars; they don't need the fine money; give it to me then.

I do have experience with traffic courts, but none recently. In my younger days I have had plenty.

As for paying fines regardless of whether I am guilty or not is outright wrong. I can honestly say that for all the times I was pulled over I was guilty of the offense that the officer pulled me over for with the exception on one time. That one time the officer was mistaken about my plates being expired and as he came to my window stated that he thought my plates were expired but saw the sticker clearer after I pulled over and saw that they were not. He let me go immediately without checking my license (which legally he couldn't do anyway). 

But every other time I was in the wrong, I knew I was in the wrong and I did make the decision to be in the wrong. Now if some cases I did not agree with the law, but that really is no excuse. So in these cases I owed up to what I did and took responsibility for my actions. I didnt try to justify my actions and play the victim.

And yes when you cost out the salary of the officer, those that support him or her, the salary of the judge and the clerk of the court and any bailiffs and all that support them in their traffic law enforcement pulse all the equipment and building space and all that supports that. pluse any benefits paid the fines usually don't add up to any amount that covers it. 

______________ Even when your guilty, you still have a right to have the "People" prove their case beyond a resonable doubt. There's also the 5th Amendment where you don't have to incriminate yourself. I see nothing wrong with forcing the State to do their job, and that is prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt with the Officer present. That goes to facing your accuser. If it was important enough for them to waste your time to stop you and write you a citation, it should be important enough to show up in court, and follow all the rules, laws, and procedures properly to win a conviction. If the State has to trample on several laws and rights in order to win convictions, something is wrong. I don't have much of a problem with losing, but the playing field should appear to be fair and level. It does not appear that way. The "clerical" errors that appear to be routine appear to me to not be "errors" at all, but designed to be subtle trampling of rights. Why are they so afraid of a fair trial? They will bend and/or break their own rules to avoid it. My letter telling them they were wrong in denying a Trial De Novo based on the 20-day time rule was a perfect example. My current open case where they wanted to ignore the citation and hold an appearance at a random court of THEIR choosing without giving me reasonable notification or communication and response, is another great example. Why are they so afraid of going by the book? Also, the fine revenue is more than a drop in the bucket. Remember, the fine isn't the only part of the citation. In CA, you pay more in fees and penalties than the original fine. They do this to avoid challenges to another right, and that is Cruel and Unusual Punishment. By not calling it a "fine" apparently the State thinks it's not a punishment.

Remember that I also have the right to wave those rights. And I Have the right to say, yep you got me and is a fair charge and take my lumps like an adult.

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

andres3 said:

abacomike said:

andres3 said:

I think what my ticket stories above show is that law enforcement is pretty incompetent and inept when they try to enforce anything other than speed laws. They are very experienced and therefore, more competent with the speeding tickets. On my "maximum" speed violations, they for the most part have the upper hand, and were correct that I was speeding per the letter of the law. Basic speed law is different, and gives me a fighting chance.

Maybe there would be less stress in your life if you just slowed down a little so you wouldn’t have all these stories about beating tickets.  It would also relieve us of some stress by not having to read about your frequent interactions with law enforcement while driving your car! 

And that's exactly what I mean when I say slow down you'll live longer. Less stress overall doing so.

I think you guys missed the point of my long post. All those examples were things that didn't involve speed! Unless you consider a right turn at 1 MPH speed on a red light.

My point is that most, if not all, of your stories involved you getting pulled over for speeding. That is until you said most of your tickets were not for speeding and I called you on it.

Yes, and you were proven wrong and mistaken on that point.

Actually since you never posted a link to any post you made about them I think I was proven right.

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

andres3 said:

fintail said:

If only the enforcement sector would go after or be told to go after more than simple speeders. The amount of "drivers" I see with phones in their hand, not signaling, violating green signaled crosswalks, turning into the wrong lane, etc is stupefying. Actually cracking down on more than speed might alleviate some stress from those who have to dodge idiots, especially on foot. On the other hand, this morning I saw a brave hardworking bootstrapper in a Tesla going maybe 60-70 in a 40, probably less likely to be nabbed for that than a 19 year old from a less affluent suburb speeding in a 20 year old Civic. But I guess that's how it goes, justice is not blind, they deserve the endless tax breaks, with more upcoming, as the entitled lucky ones like to lecture "life isn't fair", dopey libertarians will cry "class warfare!" if anyone questions this dumb status quo Given the perks and blind deference accumulated and held by the crime and punishment industry, no doubt even doubling the amount of citations would fail to fund that system. This isn't real world accountability. If speed demon's posts irk some, just skip them. It's not rocket surgery.

Most of us do not have any direct contact with traffic law inforcement activities because we obey or are in compliance with all traffic laws.  We don’t travel more than 3-5 mph over the speed limit; we stop at red lights and stop si.  Why?  Because they find the traffic laws too restricting for their driving preferences.  Tough, isn’t it!

If everyone obeyed the traffic laws, we would all be safer on the roads when we drive.  It’s because of those who violate traffic laws that accidents are on the rise.

Do we know what percentage of people are pulled over for each offense? We see someone pulled over so we automatically presume it's for speeding? How do we know it's not for cell phone use or not using turn signals or cutting someone off?

It's a pretty soild assumption when you see it happen in front/alongside/behind you. You are observing traffic, and you don't see any violations yourself, other than speeding, which everyone is doing, so when someone gets pulled over, pretty safe process of elmination. Also, if the fastest guy that just passed you gets pulled over, another prettty strong indicator.

As you say it is an assumption, you really have no idea why that person was pulled over. Maybe due to making unsafe lane changes, or not using signals, or on a cell phone, or expired plates, or having ketchup on your hotdog (illegal here in Chicago), or any other reason. 

That's not true. I have these things called eyeballs, two of them, and they work great. I also have superior powers of observation while I"m driving. I'd have noticed an unsafe lane change, not using signals, or cell phone use in many cases, if they had occurred. Expires plates, I'm not paying attention for that, as it doesn't affect my safety. How would the Officer know that from their typical hidden positions? License plate readers? Would they pull someone over for only that reason without being certain their records are not faulty? Seems very far-fetched. I think we all know all those other reasons are a mere statistical blip on what is usually going on out there.

You may have eyeballs but can you read minds? Unless you can read the officers mind you have no way of knowing why someone got pulled over.

snakeweasel

Mr_Shiftright said:

henryn said:

I'm going to say 1958 Buick. It's been a lot of years now, but my older brother towned one of these in 1966 or thereabout.

We have another winner, it's a 58 Buick Limited. 

OK one more;

That's a 1955 Studebaker President.

Oh so close it is a 1955 Studebaker but;

snakeweasel

Was at a local auto meet last night incase you couldn't tell. loved the paint job on this one.

jmonroe

Mr_Shiftright said:

jmonroe said:

Hey hosts, how did I get a new mug shot? How am I supposed to find myself in here now? :@

jmonroe

I think it's rather flattering.

Like they say, it comes down to who's doing the looking. To me it looked like I had a bad sunburn. In any case, thanks for fixing it. Back to my handsome smileing green face again.

jmonroe

oldfarmer50

tommister2 said:

oldfarmer50 said:

28firefighter said:

See Office Space: e.g. Milton

I vacationed on the beach where the final scene of that movie was filmed.

What beach is it?

It's the beach that belongs to Sunset Key Resort just offshore from Key West.

jmonroe

jmonroe said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

jmonroe said:

Hey hosts, how did I get a new mug shot? How am I supposed to find myself in here now? :@

jmonroe

I think it's rather flattering.

Like they say, it comes down to who's doing the looking. To me it looked like I had a bad sunburn. In any case, thanks for fixing it. Back to my handsome smileing green face again.

jmonroe

Hey Mods, I'm sunburned again.

jmonroe

oldfarmer50

That's beautifully done, not too flashy. I liked that Studebaker Commander too. Studebaker made some nicely styled cars.

jmonroe

oldfarmer50 said:

That's beautifully done, not too flashy. I liked that Studebaker Commander too. Studebaker made some nicely styled cars.

Some of them may have been OK style wise but I never met one Studebaker owner who was satisfied with their reliability even when new. At one point they were notorious for burning oil.

jmonroe

isellhondas

andres3 said:

isellhondas said:

andres3 said:

I just want to say for the record my attitude is not that you all should stay home and keep out of my way out on the roadway.

Enjoy the road. Use it as you wish. You pay taxes too. But follow the rules of the road, and don't make victims of other people.

That means:
1) don't impede traffic
2) don't be the cause of traffic
3) don't wreck damage other's personal property because see #1 and #2 above, in addition to victimizing them to your insurance company and a body shop.
4) If I see you force passes on the right I'll be just as mad at you for doing it to someone else as I am for doing it to me, if you do it to me.

andres3, I don't think I would enjoy being a passenger in your car.

I would however enjoy being a Traffic Court Judge with you in front of me.

Remember, most honest people's only exposure to the Justice System is through Traffic Court. Handing down arbitrary and unfair rulings creates nothing but disrespect and contempt for those that make and enforce those laws, while simultaneously ignoring all the laws that don't fit their financial mission.

Very few people can match the number of tickets I received in my misspent youth. Mostly speeding tickets asn, you know what? I deserved every one that was given to me. Once I failed to yield to a pedestrian that I didn't deserve. I went to court on every ticket I received. I was always the victim. The cop must have clocked the wrong car, etc. The pedestrian was a Wino who had waved me through the crosswalk. (True but I lost this one).

I think during that time I may have "beat" one or two of them through my willingness and ability to dispense a believable amount of BS that the judge gave me the benefit of the doubt. A couple of times, the cop didn't show up in court which in CA in those days gave me a free ride!

But, I was 18 years old with a fast car and a cocky attitude.

But, as I said, with one exception....I DESERVED EACH AND EVERY ONE!

The last tiem I got a ticket was when I was 28 years old in my tool truck when I made a left turn at a time I shouldn't have. That was a few years ago.

Since then, I have slowed down. I have quit making excuses and I have dropped (most) of my cockiness.

See Andres, how easy it can be?

In CA in the old days if you smarted off to a cop or acted like you knew more about the law then he did, the cop would draw a very small circle it the upper left of the ticket. He would make a small dot in the middle.

That told the judge that you had been a "difficult customer"

I never got a circle!

oldfarmer50

jmonroe said:

oldfarmer50 said:

That's beautifully done, not too flashy. I liked that Studebaker Commander too. Studebaker made some nicely styled cars.

Some of them may have been OK style wise but I never met one Studebaker owner who was satisfied with their reliability even when new. At one point they were notorious for burning oil.

jmonroe

But as an antique you would put up with a lot more quirks than if it was new. I remember many a Caddie owner in not too distant times being told that burning a quart of oil every 1000 miles was normal.

jmonroe

oldfarmer50 said:

jmonroe said:

oldfarmer50 said:

That's beautifully done, not too flashy. I liked that Studebaker Commander too. Studebaker made some nicely styled cars.

Some of them may have been OK style wise but I never met one Studebaker owner who was satisfied with their reliability even when new. At one point they were notorious for burning oil.

jmonroe

But as an antique you would put up with a lot more quirks than if it was new. I remember many a Caddie owner in not too distant times being told that burning a quart of oil every 1000 miles was normal.

I agree that antiques get a pass of sorts with "quirks".

As for telling a Caddie owner that burning that much oil "was normal", I'd say that too if I sold oil and/or wanted to renege on warranty service.

jmonroe

driver100

jmonroe said:

berri said:

Well JM, if you want to name Canadians all you really need to do is look at the long list of entertainers from there

Well, one tries to be an "entertainer" whereas the other has posts with content.

jmonroe

You mean I have posts with content and Justin Bieber is an entertainer?

Not sure where that leaves poor Ab.

driver100

jmonroe said:

Hey hosts, how did I get a new mug shot? How am I supposed to find myself in here now? :@

jmonroe

They gave you the face you deserve.

oldfarmer50

jmonroe said:

oldfarmer50 said:

jmonroe said:

oldfarmer50 said:

That's beautifully done, not too flashy. I liked that Studebaker Commander too. Studebaker made some nicely styled cars.

Some of them may have been OK style wise but I never met one Studebaker owner who was satisfied with their reliability even when new. At one point they were notorious for burning oil.

jmonroe

But as an antique you would put up with a lot more quirks than if it was new. I remember many a Caddie owner in not too distant times being told that burning a quart of oil every 1000 miles was normal.

I agree that antiques get a pass of sorts with "quirks".

As for telling a Caddie owner that burning that much oil "was normal", I'd say that too if I sold oil and/or wanted to renege on warranty service.

jmonroe

Come on, you know if that old hooptie wannabe of yours burned some oil or threw a rod or whatever you'd forgive her. She's your baby.

driver100

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

isellhondas said:

andres3 said:

I just want to say for the record my attitude is not that you all should stay home and keep out of my way out on the roadway.

Enjoy the road. Use it as you wish. You pay taxes too. But follow the rules of the road, and don't make victims of other people.

That means:
1) don't impede traffic
2) don't be the cause of traffic
3) don't wreck damage other's personal property because see #1 and #2 above, in addition to victimizing them to your insurance company and a body shop.
4) If I see you force passes on the right I'll be just as mad at you for doing it to someone else as I am for doing it to me, if you do it to me.

andres3, I don't think I would enjoy being a passenger in your car.

I would however enjoy being a Traffic Court Judge with you in front of me.

Remember, most honest people's only exposure to the Justice System is through Traffic Court. Handing down arbitrary and unfair rulings creates nothing but disrespect and contempt for those that make and enforce those laws, while simultaneously ignoring all the laws that don't fit their financial mission.

My experience is that the traffic courts tend to be somewhat fair and impartial. But then again I take responsibility for my actions. As for financial missions, most jurisdictions don't make money on traffic enforcement.

The problem is you don't have any experience with traffic courts.

Furthermore, another problem is you don't have any experience with California Traffic Courts.

When you say "taking responsibility for your actions" what you really mean to say is paying a fine regardless of whether you are guilty or not.

As to not making money on traffic enforcement, that's another lauaghable lie, for if it were true, all the Traffic Courts in America wouldn't object to putting all traffic fine revenue for the current fiscal year into an account in my name. They should be able to run just fine off of tax payer dollars; they don't need the fine money; give it to me then.

If it was important enough for them to waste your time to stop you and write you a citation, it should be important enough to show up in court, and follow all the rules, laws, and procedures properly to win a conviction. If the State has to trample on several laws and rights in order to win convictions, something is wrong. I don't have much of a problem with losing, but the playing field should appear to be fair and level. It does not appear that way.

The "clerical" errors that appear to be routine appear to me to not be "errors" at all, but designed to be subtle trampling of rights. Why are they so afraid of a fair trial? They will bend and/or break their own rules to avoid it. My letter telling them they were wrong in denying a Trial De Novo based on the 20-day time rule was a perfect example.

My current open case where they wanted to ignore the citation and hold an appearance at a random court of THEIR choosing without giving me reasonable notification or communication and response, is another great example. Why are they so afraid of going by the book?

Also, the fine revenue is more than a drop in the bucket. Remember, the fine isn't the only part of the citation. In CA, you pay more in fees and penalties than the original fine. They do this to avoid challenges to another right, and that is Cruel and Unusual Punishment. By not calling it a "fine" apparently the State thinks it's not a punishment.

Remember that I also have the right to wave those rights. And I Have the right to say, yep you got me and is a fair charge and take my lumps like an adult.

NJ
Snake, I gotta tell you good buddy.......There are some people you should never argue or reason with. I guaranty you, no matter how right you are you will never win.

oldfarmer50

Here's today's auto adventure.

Last night in a driving rain the "I don't know nuttin about cars" kid calls me and says he has a flat. He knows that dad is a sucker for this kind of stuff so I spring into action with the pump and a can of fix a flat. I ask him "why didn't you change it yourself or call AAA"? He says he knows I like fixing stuff (in other words a sucker) so he graced me with the task. (Inappropriate contented deleted).

I get air in the tire and I notice two big slash marks in the sidewall. How'd that happen I ask....kid hasn't a clue....maybe he gave a Lyft ride to Jack the Ripper. So now he needs a new tire.

I tell him go to the Goodyear store because they can match your original GY tire. I tell him to have AAA put the donut on and he can drop the bad tire at the store. Of course the GY store is a madhouse on Saturday and they treat him like crap with the "we'll get to it when we get to it" attitude. He gets the new tire back hours later and tries to mount it on his car.

Turns out the AAA goon he called in the AM torqued the nuts so tight he can't get them off to remount the tire. I come home from the farmer's market and the two off us start hammering and pry barring at them. An hour later we managed to get three of them off but the last two refuse to cooperate. I tell him to call AAA back and get them to fix their mess. The AAA dispatcher screws up the call and we get nothing for two more hours. I tell the kid to call AAA and start yelling. He does and they say an hour wait. 5 minutes later the service truck calls and says he's in the driveway. Huh?

Anyway, takes him 2 seconds with the air gun to bust the last bolts off and the tire gets replaced. Kid loses a day's pay and has to pay another day's pay for the tire.

Moral of the story...don't involve your freaking father in your stupid problems. He gets too upset.

BTW, I told him to file a complaint with AAA about the original service but he's too nice of a guy to try to get anyone in trouble.

jmonroe

oldfarmer50 said:

Here's today's auto adventure.

Last night in a driving rain the "I don't know nuttin about cars" kid calls me and says he has a flat. He knows that dad is a sucker for this kind of stuff so I spring into action with the pump and a can of fix a flat. I ask him "why didn't you change it yourself or call AAA"? He says he knows I like fixing stuff (in other words a sucker) so he graced me with the task. (Inappropriate contented deleted).

I get air in the tire and I notice two big slash marks in the sidewall. How'd that happen I ask....kid hasn't a clue....maybe he gave a Lyft ride to Jack the Ripper. So now he needs a new tire.

I tell him go to the Goodyear store because they can match your original GY tire. I tell him to have AAA put the donut on and he can drop the bad tire at the store. Of course the GY store is a madhouse on Saturday and they treat him like crap with the "we'll get to it when we get to it" attitude. He gets the new tire back hours later and tries to mount it on his car.

Turns out the AAA goon he called in the AM torqued the nuts so tight he can't get them off to remount the tire. I come home from the farmer's market and the two off us start hammering and pry barring at them. An hour later we managed to get three of them off but the last two refuse to cooperate. I tell him to call AAA back and get them to fix their mess. The AAA dispatcher screws up the call and we get nothing for two more hours. I tell the kid to call AAA and start yelling. He does and they say an hour wait. 5 minutes later the service truck calls and says he's in the driveway. Huh?

Anyway, takes him 2 seconds with the air gun to bust the last bolts off and the tire gets replaced. Kid loses a day's pay and has to pay another day's pay for the tire.

Moral of the story...don't involve your freaking father in your stupid problems. He gets too upset.

BTW, I told him to file a complaint with AAA about the original service but he's too nice of a guy to try to get anyone in trouble.

I'd say something about letting other people touch your wheels but you guys have heard it several times already.

jmonroe