Dear Kathy et. al:

Bear with me. This isn't the same old re-hash of the thread.

I know the discussion on the newsgroup has been quite heated.
I just re-read many of everyone's posts. This time, I am finally
hearing the things people are saying which I should have heard in the
first place.

What is clear is that everyone is saying that I must drop the
"flow of traffic" defense because it is very weak defense at best, and
can piss off the judge/increase my punishment if I act like an idiot
about it.

Therefore, I must look for other defenses. It seems to me
that the only defense or the only way I will even have a chance of
beating the ticket (and I don't want to get into why I want to fight
the ticket because that is just a big can of nasty worms) is to raise
reasonable doubt that I was actually over the speed limit. It will be
exceedingly difficult to cast such doubt on the available
evidence/witness. I have the unenviable task of trying to do so in
the minds of judge/jury. I have to question radar technology itself
and also question someone who is a very credible witness of the state
(ie the officer). It won't be easy. However, here are some random
thoughts as a starting point:

Laser is likely to be calibrated. No luck of placing doubt
there.

But it was a cold night. Could the officer be using his
heater in the car? That would interfere with the radar's heat
sensors.

Was there other cars on the road? Could the beam have been
wrongly aimed at other motorists?

Was the cell phone of the officer "ON" at that time? We know
that hospitals and air planes do not allow the use of such electronic
devices because they interfere with sensors and other equipments.

Was the squad car's engine running? Can interfere.

Was the radio system on? Was any electronic devices other
than the speed radar on at the time of the gunning?

If I bring a male friend with me, will the witness be able to
pick me out in the courtroom? I remember when I was younger, I went
to court with my buddy on a jay-walking ticket. I kept on making
eye-contact with the cop outside the court before the case started.
The cop thought I was the defendant. However, when the real defendant
(my buddy) stood up in court for his trial, the cop was completely
shocked and confused and had to tell the judge that he did not
remember the case at all. The case had to be dismissed because the
witness could not point out the perpetrator.

A cop writes lots of tickets. They are all routine.
Therefore, since there was nothing outrageous in my case, it is
probably a vague memory in the cop's mind anyhow. I acted polite and
didn't give the cop anything remarkable to remember. It is very
likely that he doesn't remember me from tim-buck-tu. (I know it is a
long shot, but as you say, I don't have much to go on).


xxxxxxx

--- now I have questions in general: I could be reading the fifth
amendament incorrectly, but does it not say that if I am to be charged
with a crime, it has to come from the grand jury? So, where is the
grand jury in this case? Since it is a crime to go over the speed
limit, does the state not have to hold a grand jury indictment? I
know it seems trivial when it is a traffic ticket (and yes, you can
easily turn this one into more proof of my grandiosity that I would
demand a grand jury for a ticket), but it is plainly written in the
fifth amendament and if for nothing else than scholarly learning
reasons, I would like to hear your take on this.


I am not saying that it will be an easy thing to do. Some say
it is a lost cause. If I fail to place reasonable doubt, I will lose
the case. I know that going in. I am prepared for that real
possibility. On the other hand, there is really learning which can be
gleamed from this experience. I have nothing better to do until
March, what better way to learn about our legal system and legal way
of thinking (ie lawyer think) than to defend a case for myself? It's
not like if I lose, I can go to jail or anything like that. It
behooves me to at least try some form of defense, which is well within
my rights to do. Also, the fifth amendament specifically states that
I do not have to self-increminate, so I will not need to testify
against myself. Therefore, the evidence against myself as can only be
given by myself are completely inadmissable and thus non-issues.

The burden of proof is on the state. State has a pretty easy
case. By my constitutional right, I don't have to make the case any
easier. In fact,I believe it is accepted lawyer practices to make the
case as difficult for the state as possible. Please correct me if I
am wrong on this.

sincerely, Moser.

LovingPerson wrote:
Dear Kathy et. al:
Bear with me. This isn't the same old re-hash of the thread.
I know the discussion on the newsgroup has been quite heated. I just re-read many of everyone's posts. This time, I am finally hearing the things people are saying which I should have heard in the first place.

Your case is going to be a tough one to win for sure.

I am no expert on radar guns but I do know the basics.
Compare a radar gun to your car's headlight.
Where ever that beam of light is, is where the radar signal is.
So anything that crosses that path will trigger the response.
As I understand it, radar is only good for an accuracy of 300 feet.
One other thing you have to look at is, where was the cop sitting when he
"took your picture"?
How was he sitting?
If he was 90 degrees to the roadway, there can be only one response to his
signal to you, and that is, zero.
Zero because you are not moving away, or towards, the source.
This is well documented on the web.

Radar uses the technology of determining distance between point a and b at
two different intervals.
The formula - speed = distance/time gives us the number.

Where was he in relation to you?
Was he alongside the roadway parallel to you?
Was he on a ramp looking down as a lot of cops like to do?
This can easily be beaten by the premise that the beam width is way to wide
in heavy traffic to discern one vehicle.
Ahhhh. But the clincher is, he detects a speeding vehicle, sees you are the
fastest moving vehicle, approaches you from behind, checking his
speedometer, and bingo. You get nailed.

What if 100 vehicles are all doing the same speed at the same time?
He can just pick one at random and cite that one.

The point being, the speed limit law was violated.
You are guilty.


FYI, truckins [truck inspector] is not to be trusted as a source of law
interpretation.
He only claims to be employed as a "truck inspector" whose main job is
working at truck weigh stations.
Although he has never stated for which state he is employed by, or his real
name, or anything else that would say he actually is one.
AFAIK, he's just a clown pretending to be something.

I am not an attorney and do not pretend to be one.
As this is a discussion group, I only discuss the issues raised.
Whether or not what I say is factual, is something you have to prove on your
own.

Legal advice is obtained by hiring an attorney, period.

>From: "Richard" anonymous@127.000
FYI, truckins [truck inspector] is not to be trusted as a source of lawinterpretation.He only claims to be employed as a "truck inspector" whose main job isworking at truck weigh stations.

LOLOLOL.....look up who I claim to work for.....although I do SOMETIMES work at
weigh stations....it is more convenient to pull over trucks there than on the
interstates.....inspecting trucks is PART of my job......a part that I enjoy
because I do like truck drivers...they are an interesting breed.....but then as
EVERYONE in MTT has figured out.....YOU AREN'T a truck driver and never have
been....
Although he has never stated for which state he is employed by, or his realname, or anything else that would say he actually is one.

LOLOLOLOL......cause I pick up too many cranks like you.....look up the Richard
Bullis FAQ
AFAIK, he's just a clown pretending to be something.

LOLOLOL....got a job yet, Bullis or you still living off the county dole?I am not an attorney and do not pretend to be one.

You pretend to be a lot of things and get slapped down SOOO often ....but saylo
and you should get on well together....go stroke each others egos.......

As I posted in the other post, I am not interested in continuing to
bicker, Truckinsp.

Now, how about some substantive answers to my questions. I am done
with the back and forth posts of name calling and one-upsmanship. I
am ready for some decent discussion if you are ready.

I don't care what other people have to say about you. I want to hear
from you on your own merits. So if you are ready to carry on a
conversation of substance, I am all ears. Don't let this guy with
whom you seem to have a long history cloud this conversation between
you and me. And do not lump me in with anyone else. I speak for
myself and I let what I have said, good or stupid, stand on its own.
I hope you'd do the same so I can learn something here in this group.
Learning is why I came here.

The ball is in your court. I've said my piece.

lates.

truckinsp@aol.com (Truckinsp) wrote in message news:<20040101161844.19067.00001962@mb-m13.aol.com>...From: "Richard" anonymous@127.000FYI, truckins [truck inspector] is not to be trusted as a source of lawinterpretation.He only claims to be employed as a "truck inspector" whose main job isworking at truck weigh stations. LOLOLOL.....look up who I claim to work for.....although I do SOMETIMES work at weigh stations....it is more convenient to pull over trucks there than on the interstates.....inspecting trucks is PART of my job......a part that I enjoy because I do like truck drivers...they are an interesting breed.....but then as EVERYONE in MTT has figured out.....YOU AREN'T a truck driver and never have been....Although he has never stated for which state he is employed by, or his realname, or anything else that would say he actually is one. LOLOLOLOL......cause I pick up too many cranks like you.....look up the Richard Bullis FAQAFAIK, he's just a clown pretending to be something. LOLOLOL....got a job yet, Bullis or you still living off the county dole?I am not an attorney and do not pretend to be one. You pretend to be a lot of things and get slapped down SOOO often ....but saylo and you should get on well together....go stroke each others egos.......

Truckinsp wrote:
From: "Richard" anonymous@127.000
FYI, truckins [truck inspector] is not to be trusted as a source of lawinterpretation.He only claims to be employed as a "truck inspector" whose main job isworking at truck weigh stations.
LOLOLOL.....look up who I claim to work for.....although I do SOMETIMES work at weigh stations....it is more convenient to pull over trucks there than on the interstates.....inspecting trucks is PART of my job......a part that I enjoy because I do like truck drivers...they are an interesting breed.....but then as EVERYONE in MTT has figured out.....YOU AREN'T a truck driver and never have been....

As you have never been a cop of any kind.
Instead of answering the original poster's question, which was directed at
you, you failed to even make an attempt.
Yet, you'd rather take the time to harass me unjustly.


Although he has never stated for which state he is employed by, or hisreal name, or anything else that would say he actually is one.
LOLOLOLOL......cause I pick up too many cranks like you.....look up the Richard Bullis FAQ

This so called FAQ was written by a kook witch hunter who's only purpose is
to harass and slander people.
98% of it can not be proven that I had written any of the posts linked to.
He just claims they were written by me.
His context says something quite different than the posts do.
Once you see the rest of the site, you'll know what an asshole the ****head
is.

AFAIK, he's just a clown pretending to be something.
LOLOLOL....got a job yet, Bullis or you still living off the county dole?
I am not an attorney and do not pretend to be one.
You pretend to be a lot of things and get slapped down SOOO often ....but saylo and you should get on well together....go stroke each others egos.......

And when others say the same thing I do, that's just fine with you ain't it?

In article <bt44g902pdm@enews4.newsguy.com>, Richard <anonymous@127.000> wrote:
98% of it can not be proven that I had written any of the posts linked to.He just claims they were written by me.

"Cannot be proven" is well short of a denial. Did you write the posts or not?

tjab wrote:
In article <bt44g902pdm@enews4.newsguy.com>, Richard <anonymous@127.000> wrote:
98% of it can not be proven that I had written any of the posts linkedto. He just claims they were written by me.
"Cannot be proven" is well short of a denial. Did you write the posts or not?

Can you prove that you just posted this message?
Can anyone else?
If something is said enough times, people have a tendancy to believe it
whether it's true or not.
"Just Taylor" will attack you for any reason. Take your statements and twist
them around.
Because "HE" says it, the stupid sheep people listen and agree.
Because I don't join their little cliche, and do things their way, they
harass me.

In article <bt4km502nn2@enews3.newsguy.com>, Richard <anonymous@127.000> wrote: tjab wrote: In article <bt44g902pdm@enews4.newsguy.com>, Richard <anonymous@127.000> wrote:98% of it can not be proven that I had written any of the posts linkedto. He just claims they were written by me. "Cannot be proven" is well short of a denial. Did you write the posts or not?Can you prove that you just posted this message?Can anyone else?

I didn't ask you about proof. I asked you whether you wrote them.

>Subject: Re: Questions for Kathy, Mike, Truckinsp, and others. Regarding mytraffic Ticket 74 mph:From: tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab)Date: 1/2/2004 2:07 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <bt4q3i$5nb@rac2.wam.umd.edu>In article <bt4km502nn2@enews3.newsguy.com>, Richard <anonymous@127.000>wrote: tjab wrote: In article <bt44g902pdm@enews4.newsguy.com>, Richard <anonymous@127.000> wrote:>98% of it can not be proven that I had written any of the posts linked>to. He just claims they were written by me. "Cannot be proven" is well short of a denial. Did you write the posts or not?Can you prove that you just posted this message?Can anyone else?I didn't ask you about proof. I asked you whether you wrote them.
But he is not obliged to tell you. Posting anonymously is a right of people
who use Usenet. If you feel you have some legal matter to address, then go
through the proper legal channels of requesting the particulars of the
anonymous poster. Anyone is well within his rights to protect his anonymous
screenname unless there is a court order mandating the ISP give up the info
about the user. Even then there is recourse, like moving to quash the subpoena
on constitutional grounds.





..

"THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the
Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban
You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again!
http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html

In article <20040102190205.21847.00001230@mb-m19.aol.com>,
MarianneLuban <marianneluban@aol.comnospam> wrote:Subject: Re: Questions for Kathy, Mike, Truckinsp, and others. Regarding mytraffic Ticket 74 mph:From: tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab)Date: 1/2/2004 2:07 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <bt4q3i$5nb@rac2.wam.umd.edu>In article <bt4km502nn2@enews3.newsguy.com>, Richard <anonymous@127.000>wrote: tjab wrote: > In article <bt44g902pdm@enews4.newsguy.com>, Richard <anonymous@127.000> > wrote: >>98% of it can not be proven that I had written any of the posts linked >>to. He just claims they were written by me. > "Cannot be proven" is well short of a denial. Did you write the posts or > not?Can you prove that you just posted this message?Can anyone else?I didn't ask you about proof. I asked you whether you wrote them.But he is not obliged to tell you.

Of course he's not. So what? His refusal to either avow or disavow
the posts is far more interesting than any claim one way or the other
would be.

tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<bt5fqa$ogs@rac1.wam.umd.edu>... In article <20040102190205.21847.00001230@mb-m19.aol.com>, MarianneLuban <marianneluban@aol.comnospam> wrote:Subject: Re: Questions for Kathy, Mike, Truckinsp, and others. Regarding mytraffic Ticket 74 mph:From: tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab)Date: 1/2/2004 2:07 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <bt4q3i$5nb@rac2.wam.umd.edu>In article <bt4km502nn2@enews3.newsguy.com>, Richard <anonymous@127.000>wrote:> tjab wrote:>> > In article <bt44g902pdm@enews4.newsguy.com>, Richard <anonymous@127.000>> > wrote:> >>98% of it can not be proven that I had written any of the posts linked> >>to. He just claims they were written by me.> > "Cannot be proven" is well short of a denial. Did you write the posts or> > not?>>Can you prove that you just posted this message?>Can anyone else?I didn't ask you about proof. I asked you whether you wrote them.But he is not obliged to tell you. Of course he's not. So what? His refusal to either avow or disavow the posts is far more interesting than any claim one way or the other would be.


I have no idea what is going on here and how the conversation became
who is avowing what. I must have missed a number of posts that have
since been repealed.

However, as the originator of the thread (ie "question for K, M, and T
re: 74mph"), I am curious why it is that Truckinsp all of a sudden
becomes silent when I stopped bickering. It seems that this guy is
more interested in name calling than anything else. No civil
conversations interest him.

You folks, (ie. Mariaane and Richard et. al) who have been following
this melo-drama (which I apologize for having been a part of) tell me
if I am off base on this. It just seems that this Truckinsp guy is
some sort of detective wanna be. He follows the lead of Mother-Kathy
and, like a five year old vying for mother's attention, goes and reads
up on Narscissitic Personality Disorder after mother Kathy posted it.
He then was all excited about posting and quoting the DSM-IV to prove
that I have NPD. You could all but hear him jumping up and down all
proud of himself and waiting for mother to give him Kudos for being
such a smart little boy.

I also say that he seems like a detective wanna-be because he goes and
(again following Mother-Kathy's lead) investigates what other posts I
have posted in other groups. His unmatched skill in detective work
uncovered that I was trying to "con" people in Alt.Car group. He also
uncovered a plot to post a picture of a Maryland bought car which had
a non-Maryland plate, not to mention the supposed "death thread,"
which he accused me of having posted. Although the charges and the
conclusions reached by him were outrageous to say the least, I
none-the-less was civil and gave him the same Kudos that I would give
any precocious five-year old. I told him that he was "Top-Cop" in my
book. I told him he had amazing detective skills. I have no way of
knowing whether he is a Cop or just a Truck Inspector (thx Richard,
for bringing this to my attention). Whether he is a real cop or not,
he for sure has fantasies of being a top investigative detective. He
has a Master's Degree in Engineering, you know. By golly, how can his
police force have over-looked him for so long when the talent for
detective is so eye-soringly obvious.

He probably gets no validation from his superiors and he probably got
little of it as a child from his parents. One can't help but have
sympathy for him because it really is a hard way of living to be
tormented by feelings of inadequacy (I know this, because I also have
feelings of inadequacy--but I am in therapy now "heal thy self").
Deep down inside TruckInsp is a sad little boy who is insecure of
himself and longs for validation. An internet mother is better than
nothing.

He has this fantasy of being top detective. You notice that I used a
psychiatric device which is to deal with a delusional in his own
world. I told him that he was top-cop. You notice that I didn't
directly challenge his allegations. For doing so, it only makes a
delusional person dig in even harder into his fantasies. No. What I
did was I talked to him as though his fantasies were actually real.
It is a technique I call "showing the obsurd by being obsurd." It was
not done in a malicious manner. It was only done because there were
no other compassionate ways to treat a person so deeply entrenched in
such fantasitic fancies.

You will note that after I paid him this complement of "top detective"
and "you are a credit to the Force!," he stopped bickering with me. I
don't know if it because he really felt vindicated (which would mean
his fantasies are more deeply rooted than previously thought) or that
he realize how ridiculous his posts were and just stopped on his own
recognance. I certainly hope it is the latter, for his own sakes.

A little bit more about this technique: What happens is that when a
person has outlandish fantasies, if you confront them head on, it will
only make them defensive and hang on to the delusions even harder.
However, if you stop fighting them on the facts, but treat his
fantasies as if they are real. Then the deluded person has a chance
to let his guard down and really listen to what and how ridiculous the
fantasies are. It is all quite Zen like a technique. It is very
Eastern in the way that it does not fight force with force.

Any thoughts?

sincerely, Moser. (and yes. It is Dr. Moser, TruckInsp. You piss me
off because you question me when I call myself Dr. Moser and then you
question me when I stop belaboring the point of my being a doctor).
So which way do you want me to call myself? I give you the power.
You tell me how I should sign my name.

cheers.

Lates.

p.s. I have nothing bad to say about Katherine. She has been patient
and great with her posts. I can understand why she is tired of
talking to me and has stopped posting. I only used the term
"mother-Kathy" because that is what TruckInsp sees her as. I don't
mean to disparage an otherwise professional and polite woman. Please
forgive me.

And please come back into the discussion on my ticket, you I haven't
angered you too overly. I do value your educated opionion and that is
no B.S.

sincerely, Dr. Moser.

On 3 Jan 2004 04:08:20 -0800, saylo1234@aol.com (LovingPerson) in
misc.legal, wrote the following:
p.s. I have nothing bad to say about Katherine. She has been patientand great with her posts. I can understand why she is tired oftalking to me and has stopped posting. I only used the term"mother-Kathy" because that is what TruckInsp sees her as. I don'tmean to disparage an otherwise professional and polite woman. Pleaseforgive me.And please come back into the discussion on my ticket, you I haven'tangered you too overly. I do value your educated opionion and that isno B.S.

Have given you the best view possible legally I can under the
circumstances, by quoting the present law of Maryland vis a vis your
situation. I suggest an attorney if you are serious about contesting
the ticket, as only an attorney trained in Maryland law can fully point
out what options you have.

There's really nothing more to add. If you can find a credible defense
to driving 19 mph over the stated limit, which you acknowledge was
posted, more power to you. I see none, as you have laid it out, as I
stated before.

Beyond this, I have no additional comments to this thread (or any of its
related threads).


--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.

DISCLAIMER:

Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
state's laws and applications thereof.