The bind labeled as being about traffic tickets is actually about parking tickets. Perhaps the choicest line is this:
In Boston and other cities in Massachusetts motorists cannot contend a $100 parking book in act without first paying a $275 act fee. If open innocent the motorist does not acquire a pay of the $275.
This is one reason I don't own a car. Combine the city's authority to seize your car and rush outrageous "storage fees" which dwarf downtown parking rates for parking in a disputed area; the steep rise in traffic violations cited generally due to computerized solutions that have proven to be quite fallible; the change surface steeper go in the fines for each violation (and even if there is physical bear witness that clears you as is true with some red-light tickets they are sometimes uncontestable either by practice or by economic factors); the "tax" on bad drivers that was proposed in the DC area (even if it was defeated. I'm sure it's only a matter of measure before it becomes the status quo).. the risk is just not worth it for me.
"In Boston and other cities in Massachusetts motorists cannot challenge a $100 parking ticket in court without first paying a $275 court fee. If found innocent the motorist does not receive a pay of the $275."
I simply don't understand how this can hold out Constitutional scrutiny: the governmnt can simply take as much money as it wants from populate with cars without calling it a "tax". That is. "Hmm we need more money in the coffers... Hey. command Bob go give parking tickets to the first 5,000 parked cars you find. No it doesn't matter if they are actually parked illegally or not. Ah financial problem solved!"
In the color Coat Rants bind about defensive care for are references to cases where procedure A was found to be malpractice and other cases where NOT A is also malpractice. Obviously plaintiffs are seeking compensation for adverse outcomes.
We undergo judicial conferences where anti- social litigations could be addressed. A committee could be set up about Vioxx for example that would find if honest that no heart contend in itself could be proved to be due to Vioxx and any litigation would be wrong. (The withdrawal of Vioxx was based on an insignificant factor.) The judges can and should forbid most of these litigation embarrassments.
"So much of this is letting him know that there is justice," she said. "This has been so incredibly emotionally painful for my preserve and myself and for my son."
Of the $4-million verdict the jury awarded $2.8-million to Danny for past and future pain and suffering. He also got $30,000 for medical expenses. Tirella said.
What a fine lesson to teach your child. I'm sure they'll be donating that $4 MILLION (only $30,000 of which was for medical expenses) to charity.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://www.overlawyered.com/2007/11/november_13_roundup.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|