Posted: 4/6/2005 8:38:20 AM EDT
|
Several Months ago I was in a traffic court nightmare. I was found guilty of driving 2 miles an hour over the speed limit in a municipal court in Stanfield Oregon. I appealed this guilty verdict to the Circuit Court of Oregon and that decision was upheld. At that time the judge said that she would uphold the imposing fines found in the municipal court. The judgment in the municipal court was $180. About 2 months after that I received a legal document filed by Stanfield's attorney to the circuit court assessing fees and fines of $257 on top of the $180 judgment. This legal document was filed with the Circuit Court so I called the Circuit Court and was told that if the Circuit Court Judge decided to hear Stanfield's case that I would be notified so I could represent myself at that hearing. I received today a judgment for the $257 assessments and $180 fine but was given no opportunity to represent myself. Am I screwed? Patty |
How did they assess fees above the trial court's judgment. 
|
I can't say for sure without knowing more, but I think the court may have been waiting for you to file a response to the county's motion, and when you didn't it accepted everything the county said. $257 likely is not worth paying a lawyer to represent you over, but if you have any friends who are lawyers you may want to talk to them to see if you can get any advice. |
|
well it's hard to second guess. I did call the courts and ask to speak to the judge and was told that if the judge agreed to hear the fee assessment request that I would be notified in mail. I never was but I received this letter today and the judge signed the judgement on the 4th of April. Patty |
|
You could also call an honest lawyer (if you can find one) and ask if this is worth fighting over. They may be able to give you a quick answer, or if there is something simple that you can do yourself they may point you on the right track. Only other thing I can think of is to call the clerk of the appellate judge (his clerk, not the general clerk). Make sure to tell them you are representing yourself, and tell them you thought there would be a hearing and that you never recieved notice of one, and that the judgment affirmed was for more than the trial court's judgment. He may be able to point you in the right direction. |
|
This makes me so sick. They are just screwing me. I'm on the phone now and they said that the transcripts of my court was burned up in a fire and that before the judge signed it their clerks listened to the transcripts and said the judge told the attorney that he could assess any fees he wanted [wich is complete BS] and that the attorney did and the judge approved it. Welcome to Oregon! |
Good grief! you are correct on your assessment of the situation. |
Well besides being a few bricks shy of a full load - I guess so. Do you know what they call it when law abiding citizens fear their Government? Tyranny. I never thought it would happen to me. It really hurts too. The dern recorder laughed at me just now. Patty |
Yeah, we lawyers hear this a lot and there's not much you can do about it. If the state screws you for less money than it costs to hire the lawyer, there's not much anyone can do about it. 
|
Well I just added up court costs, fees and assessement and I've already paid $980 in court fees and my orignial fine. Now they want $257 more which would make my paying $1237 all for driving 47 in a 45. I wasn't a political science major in college [got my degree in history] but it seems to me that there was something in the bill of rights about the punishment suiting the crime. Patty |
|
I know. It sucks. Anyone in the business has seen a good share of horror stories. Problem is human nature. You can have the best system in the world, but if you staff it with morons, you're going to get these kinds of decisions. How to say it diplomatically? A lot of times these small-town cops, judges, ect.... aren't exactly the best and brightest from our nations lawschools. Some are good, but you have your share of people needing a government J.O.B. |
Well eventually knowing they're a bunch of asshats will help but until then I'm going to be peeved for a while! I'm thinking of paying them a dollar a month. Or even exactly twenty five cents a month. Patty |
Patty I read this thread after you pointed it out in your other "brush with government gone wild" thread and I have to say that 1. The officer was maybe a dullard but was "ok," 2. You have never denied guilt, 3. You appealed a decision that was correct as you were guilty (right?), 4. You resent paying for the time and effort of the court to hear your frivilous appeal (the court costs)... And based on that you now fear your government and think you have been subjected to tyranny? Tyranny?!  You have always seemed pretty cool and pretty levelheaded to me but I have to say that this is all a bit much. Either you can be a bit of a drama queen or you have bought what too many of the nuts here are selling. I am really not trying to be harsh but come on... 
|
|
Tyranny: A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power. I don't think it applys here or there. I would guess Fascism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. |
You think a person being written a ticket for a traffic offense is fascism? 
|
lesson learned - drive 55. |
are you 12? we all make mistakes, just pay your fine and move on. pulling some crazy juvenile stunt like that will probably get you a bench warrant for failure to pay your fines. |
|
Tyranny: A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power. I don't think it applys here or there. I would guess we're closer to Fascism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 gave the President a whole lot of extra political power to push a large number of regulations down at us. What we haven't seen is the oppression of opposition unless you call libertarians the opposition vice the socialist (democrats). Our nationalism has been pretty high as evident by the foolish behavior called for by many many people here and it cuts fairly close along racial lines. But those caught up in the nationalism and inflamed by the propaganda do not pause to reflect the outcome of their calls for violence. The police have been becoming more and more powerful for the last 40 to 50 years since the strife of the civil rights wars we fought in the streets in the 60's, the anti-war protests of the 70's, and the escalating war on drugs started by Nixon and carried on ever since by each administration since. The attacks of 9-11 showed the nation as a whole as to how reactive our defense is so we had to do something about it - we had to show the flag - and we now have Iraq and Afghanistan to show for it. We as a nation brought this nearing police state into being. This isn't a California thing, this isn't a New York thing, it's an American thing. For the last month I've been pointing out here and there where freedoms have resulted in either wacko behavior or laws with my "California ... figures WTF" tags. You can sit like frogs in the warming water or you can join the battle. You can run from the sound of the guns or you can march to them. Right now the battle can be fought and won with political action and support of the right candidates (not always the one party). When social norms break down due to whatever reasons - drugs, fatherless homes, MTV, the Hollywood Culture ... society - "the man" - calls for a return to normal. The 51/49% divide in the political parties mean each is at each other's throat attempting to cause failure in the state of affairs for the benefit of their political party. The police are being called upon to enforce more and more laws that over reach anything we've been accustomed to as Americans. Our cheerleaders are restricted from dancing not by social norms and adult guidance but by politician's laws. We're watching our children kill each other and adults raping our very young. The impudent politicians attempt to legislate the morals that parents have failed to teach. We have raised an entire generation of children without fathers, with little contact from their mothers, in warehouses called day care, and with the television exposing children too young to way too much violence and anti-moral/social behavior. When our kids act out from all the caffeine and sugar given to them they are drugged with behavior modifying drugs. When the child acts up it's rarely that they are given discipline. When the kids reach the age where they can dominate others they strike out on their own to raise their own little gang of other sociopaths to sell drugs in our schools and neighborhoods. We then ask the police to control kids that we never were able to - or even attempted to control. The police can't train these now anti-social children in their brief contacts with them if we couldn't do it in the child's first 16 years of life. The rif between us and them has grown fairly large. The police can size up fairly fast them from us given enough chance. It sounds like there are still back waters of inbreeds that would waste their time to ticket someone for speeding 2 mph over the limit. This sounds like an officer that needs calibration by the appropriate authories. If the judge didn't do it it's possible that the citizens will have to - get the press involved. Nothing like a bit of bad press to get the chief involved. |
Paul, again WTF does that have to do with a woman griping about paying fines for a traffic offense she committed?
|