Never pay a traffic ticket without a fight

[36Drew]

i aint no liar .thems fightin words.heres the letter i got from the attorney general'
Dear Sir Madam:
As Crown Council instructed By the Attorney General of British Columbia, For the purposes of Section 579(1) Of the criminal code of Canada .I hereby direct that the proceedings on the within information be stayed.
Yours Truly

Administrative Crown Council

That doesn't sound like a traffic ticket... C-26 is for criminal offences. So you were charged under s.253?

[kibbs]

That doesn't sound like a traffic ticket..

Violation ticket,for a left on a yellow at spall.I have never told a lie in all my posts .What purpose would that serve, In all ,none have been self serving .So who benefits from my knowledge.Some schmuck who cant keep a witness together for a year,
Who benefits from someone slandering me and accusing me of lying with nothing but conjecture to support their attack .Maybe a lawyer trying to represent people, instead of them standing up for themselves.

[36Drew]

Maybe a lawyer trying to represent people, instead of them standing up for themselves.

Way off the mark.... I'm not a lawyer and don't have any interest at all in representing people. My interest in law is purely academic. I do have a hard time with folks that seem to preach mythical methods of "beating the system" - in particular when those methods are designed to was my and everybody else's money tying up public resources.

I don't think that you're outright lying, but rather not presenting a factual representation of your circumstances. The BCAG would not stay an MVA dispute under C-26. The only way that would come about is if you were charged criminally (under C-26). In fact, the justice himself would have the power to stay proceedings of an MVA offence.

Your story, your facts, do not align with the powers granted to that level of legislation and the parties involved.

[kibbs]

Your story, your facts, do not align with the powers granted to that level of legislation and the parties involved.

when in court i am told that the justice does not have the authority to make a judgent on a charter argument.i leave right away .write down the reasons for my argument and leave it for a higher court

[dirtybiker]

Yikes..

[kibbs]

Your story, your facts, do not align with the powers granted to that level of legislation and the parties involved.

you obviously don't have all the facts and are still making wild assumptions and calling me a liar. Thats ok i know the truth'.your just makin it up.

[KL3-Something]

Maybe I can help settle the dust a little here:

The 11(b) Charter argument that is being referred to is often called an Askov argument:

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight. ... lii45.html

It is a SCC decision from 1990 that essentially sets the limits for what is an acceptable period of time to have a hearing from the time of the offence. It is a little ambiguous at best and it usually come down to what can be argued in front of a judge. But that is the catch. Charter arguments must be heard in front of a Judge. Judicial Justices of the Peace cannot hear them. So if someone walks into Traffic Court and says that they wish to make a Charter argument the matter is immediately adjourned and the disputant is told to go downstairs to the court registry to file the appropriate paperwork.

The file then goes to Provincial Crown Counsel who looks at the ticket. If it meets (or more like doesn't meet) a particular set of criteria, and a particular threshold period of time has passed since the time of the offence the Crown will stay the ticket. The disputant will be sent a letter stating same but I have never been on the receiving end of said letter so I don't know what the wording is. Only under certain circumstances will the Crown argue against a S11(b) application for dismissal.

As for the section referred to in the letter kibbs received:

Attorney General may direct stay

579. (1) The Attorney General or counsel instructed by him for that purpose may, at any time after any proceedings in relation to an accused or a defendant are commenced and before judgment, direct the clerk or other proper officer of the court to make an entry on the record that the proceedings are stayed by his direction, and such entry shall be made forthwith thereafter, whereupon the proceedings shall be stayed accordingly and any recognizance relating to the proceedings is vacated.

[KL3-Something]

The first thing you will see in a British Columbia traffic court is the “scrum”, i.e., a large group of police and accused gathered outside the courtroom discussing tickets. Why? The courts generally set thirty to fifty tickets each day. Unfortunately, the police and the traffic courts have really turned this process (in spite of what they say it is a trial process) into a business: when they give police tickets and exhort them to enforce the law, they are simply grazing more money off the motoring public.

...and it is entirely within the control of the motoring public whether or not they want their money "grazed" upon.

Say "Hi" to Paul for me...

[kibbs]

...and it is entirely within the control of the motoring public whether or not they want their money "grazed" upon.

Thank you kl your so good at settling things,you would make a good judge.I like the scrum it gives you a chance to meet the members.So far they have all been a nice bunch to me in Kelowna,

[Tero]

I attended one of these court sessions and it was like an episode of judge Judy, quite entertaining. I was fortunate, the police woman who wrote me the ticket for going 67 in a 60 zone in front of Orchard Park Mall on hwy 97 didn't show up so I was let off. Thought it was outragous being ticketed $180 for exceeding the limit by the speed of someone walking quickly.

The first person was a woman with kids in tow. She claimed the radar gun was inaccurate and the judge asked the officer if he was a radar technician, which he wasn't, so they let her off. (??) This was for going 20km/h over the speed limit through a school zone. That was a joke, mother with kids so I think she got the pitty vote.

The next was a young man who had a history of speeding. This is where the Judge Judy similarities showed up, not only did the judge give him hell for about 10 minutes, she suspended his license. His face was priceless, never seen a jaw drop that far before.

So if you have a bad driving history, dont risk it, could go very badly. If on the other hand it's the first ticket you've had in a very long time, it may be worth the effort.

So what you're saying is that you should not have gotten the ticket because you were only breaking the law a little bit? What other laws would you like to break a little bit? A few grams of cocaine? Sex with a minor who was just a week away from her legal birthday? Shoplifting something that doesn't cost too much money?

You're no better than the people you were in court with. They broke the laws and should have been accountable for that. The same goes for you.