Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Enacting Clause

Expand Messages
  • mn_chicago
    Saturday 24 January 2009 Real life example: Over a period of time, on 9 occasions I did not have change to use a tollroad where the only access is an
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 24, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Saturday 24 January 2009

      Real life example:

      Over a period of time, on 9 occasions I did not
      have change to use a tollroad where the only
      access is an automated toll entrance with no
      change, and FRNs cannot be used.

      One day, I receive an administrative determination
      that in addition to the $14 in unpaid tolls, I have
      to pay an additional $20 per violation, total due,
      $194.00.

      As is my right, I demand an administrative hearing.
      I read up on the administrative rules and learned that
      I have the right to cross-examine witness(es), and
      the right to challenge photographic evidence for
      which a proper foundation has not been laid in the
      introduction.

      Hearing date: [HO = hearing officer]

      HO: "Please identify the license plate and vehicle on
      the computer screen."

      Me: Absolutely not! I object to the images on a
      computer screen as improper and irrelevant.

      HO: "Objection overruled. For the record, the
      Tollway has established a prima facie case against the
      defendant."

      Me: Objection! I demand a witness from the Tollway
      that I can cross-examine.

      HO: "Denied."

      Me: I object to the use of these unidentified images
      on a computer screen as irrelevant and hearsay.

      HO: "Denied."

      Long story short, the HO prints out a form and hands
      it to me. "OFFICER'S FINAL ORDER"...
      "JUDGMENT TOTAL: 194"

      Me: Wait a minute! What does "194" mean?

      HO: "Dollars."

      Me: Dollars of what?!

      [Understand that this guy does not like me for all
      the questions and demands I made throughout this
      sham proceding, so he responds in an intended
      smart-a$$ way:]

      HO: "Canadian dollars. Now get out of here!"

      I just smiled and walked away.

      Know that my Notice and Demand to Dismiss includes
      the fact that Canadian dollars were demanded of me.
      The day after that administrative hearing, I sent
      the Tollway Authority a Notice and Demand for
      specification as to what it was demanding from me.
      Not what I might be able to volunteer, but precisely
      what was being lawfully demanded as an exactment?

      No response.

      A monthe later, a "Motion To Dismiss Or In The
      Alternative a Specification of Errors" from the
      State's Attorney General, authorized to represent
      the Tollway, arrives in reponse to my Notice and
      Demand To Dismiss.

      In the Tollway motion is stated, my "Notice and
      Demand for remedy sets forth a unique argument that
      plaintiff does not know what a judgment of $194.00
      is supposed to mean."
      [Now the $ and ".00" has been added]

      Two paragraphs later is stated, "The hearing officer's
      final order from which that phrase is taken from,
      states in the coupon that the 'amount due is $194.00'"
      [Now a coupon is referenced to back up a judgment.]

      The next sentence concludes, "This clearly means US
      dollars."

      Checkmate!

      Court date, 3 February.

      Cheers!

      more, but not sure when...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.