To court again
Jan. 20th, 2006 02:22 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rhialtoDid I write about my traffic ticket? No? A quick recap then: in february last year I was cycling home after dinner, it was dark, and my front light was broken. The rear light was on battery, and it was working.
Some cyclist overtook me and said "Stop, police" and indeed it was a police officer. I got a ticket for cycling without a front light. Since the beginning of they year one had to carry ID all the time which I didn't since I think that is a fundamentally bad law. Fortunately the officer was kind enough not to fine me for that.
Some time later I received a letter from the ministry of justice's collection agency (which has a name that is not grammatically correct Dutch, since in "Centraal Justitieel Incasso Buro", Incassoburo is supposed to be written as one word). It had my name misspelled. I sent it back unopened.
Some time later I got another one with the name right. But it turned out the facts were wrong; it claimed I had had no lights on my bike, and a higher fine.
So I objected to the Officier van Justitie (district attorney), obviously. His reply, when it finally came, showed that he had not understood the nature of my objection. He concluded that it was justified that I had received a ticket. But that was not what I had objected against: I objected to getting the wrong ticket. There were more factual errors. For instance there was a declaration from the officer who said "I am sure the information was entered correctly into the computer and it shows that he did cycle without any lights" and later "I don't actually recall any of this because I write so many tickets". Of course I still had the original ticket and it clearly shows I am right. If only the DA had checked their original, he would have seen too. Furthermore, the printout that was referred too showed not at all that I had cycled without any lights, because it didn't list the fact at all, just a few other things. Nothing even that would be some code number for it. It did show my statement though, referring to the light in the singular, not plural.
What a waste of time. If the police etc had done their job properly, I would have paid the 15 euro fine right away. I wouldn't have liked it, but I undeniably cycled without the one light. Bot now that they botched it and kept botching it...
So, appeal to the judge was the next step. I adapted my objection letter a bit to the new situation and new facts, and this time I even went to the trouble of adding a photocopy of the ticket. Since I realise I am pleading to an actual judge, I could ask for a certain judgement to be rendered. And apart from having the erroneous fine destroyed, I feel I have the right to compensation for the money that I spent and the time that I lost. So that's whay I write. By now it is the beginning of August.
Then I didn't hear much for a very long time (apart from a receipt). Finally, last week, a letter. I was expecting the court case to be purely administrative, as I have seen in a number of cases that friends were involved in, but no: it was a court date. 14 march 10:00 I may, if I choose, show at the courthouse to give a clarification. I'll be there, and prepare a long list of things that have gone wrong in this procedure without there being a good reason for it.
Some cyclist overtook me and said "Stop, police" and indeed it was a police officer. I got a ticket for cycling without a front light. Since the beginning of they year one had to carry ID all the time which I didn't since I think that is a fundamentally bad law. Fortunately the officer was kind enough not to fine me for that.
Some time later I received a letter from the ministry of justice's collection agency (which has a name that is not grammatically correct Dutch, since in "Centraal Justitieel Incasso Buro", Incassoburo is supposed to be written as one word). It had my name misspelled. I sent it back unopened.
Some time later I got another one with the name right. But it turned out the facts were wrong; it claimed I had had no lights on my bike, and a higher fine.
So I objected to the Officier van Justitie (district attorney), obviously. His reply, when it finally came, showed that he had not understood the nature of my objection. He concluded that it was justified that I had received a ticket. But that was not what I had objected against: I objected to getting the wrong ticket. There were more factual errors. For instance there was a declaration from the officer who said "I am sure the information was entered correctly into the computer and it shows that he did cycle without any lights" and later "I don't actually recall any of this because I write so many tickets". Of course I still had the original ticket and it clearly shows I am right. If only the DA had checked their original, he would have seen too. Furthermore, the printout that was referred too showed not at all that I had cycled without any lights, because it didn't list the fact at all, just a few other things. Nothing even that would be some code number for it. It did show my statement though, referring to the light in the singular, not plural.
What a waste of time. If the police etc had done their job properly, I would have paid the 15 euro fine right away. I wouldn't have liked it, but I undeniably cycled without the one light. Bot now that they botched it and kept botching it...
So, appeal to the judge was the next step. I adapted my objection letter a bit to the new situation and new facts, and this time I even went to the trouble of adding a photocopy of the ticket. Since I realise I am pleading to an actual judge, I could ask for a certain judgement to be rendered. And apart from having the erroneous fine destroyed, I feel I have the right to compensation for the money that I spent and the time that I lost. So that's whay I write. By now it is the beginning of August.
Then I didn't hear much for a very long time (apart from a receipt). Finally, last week, a letter. I was expecting the court case to be purely administrative, as I have seen in a number of cases that friends were involved in, but no: it was a court date. 14 march 10:00 I may, if I choose, show at the courthouse to give a clarification. I'll be there, and prepare a long list of things that have gone wrong in this procedure without there being a good reason for it.
