Red light Camera bill in House Rules Committee!

[Fighter 1]

[quote=Drover;9438317]First of all, this isn't a professional setting so my professionalism or lack thereof is immaterial.

Second, while you stand by your statements, you provide no supporting precedence for them. Believe me, I'm completely receptive to whatever novel legal theory you've developed that apparently no law school or practicing attorney is aware of and that no previous legal scholar has thought of. I've sat through countless hours of lectures on law and I've read through thousands of pages of case law, statutes, procedures, regulations, and law summaries. Trust me, I can handle a few minutes of your glorious legal enlightenment. I don't have to hear it from a law professor to believe it. I'll gladly look into any plausible legal angle you have. So please, share with me and every other attorney and/or law school student what we've been missing lo these centuries of developing statutory and common law.

Unless, of course, you can't. In which case you'd do well to just shut up and go away.[/quote

Thousands of Judges and Attorneys have see the Notice to Appear issued in all traffic case and they never say nor were they taught anything in regards to the Numbers at the bottom of those notices to which they are in part c.p.c.853.9( California Penal Code) and 40513 of the D.M.V. codes . now granted thes are California codes but the same premiss has been used in manny of the US states and has had the same results. Not a continuance but a dismissal of the charges. Both of the codes referance "YOUR" right to demand and get a verified complaint ( which is strange because they can't produce it )on the "NOTICE TO APPEAR". Now with all due respect do your home work , check out these two sites and see what i have been talking about . And with that i will shut up and go away ,good night!

[Drover]

So first you claim that your grounds are constitutional rather than statutory. But when pressed, you cite statutory law rather than constitutional law. California statute no less, which is about as applicable in an Illinois court as proclaiming "nanny-nanny-boo-boo" as your defense. Try again.

In fact, don't bother. This is getting tiresome.

[Fighter 1]

Originally Posted by Drover

So first you claim that your grounds are constitutional rather than statutory. But when pressed, you cite statutory law rather than constitutional law. California statute no less, which is about as applicable in an Illinois court as proclaiming "nanny-nanny-boo-boo" as your defense. Try again.

In fact, don't bother. This is getting tiresome.

You will make a great! Attorney . Your teachers should be proud.