|
momtartin posted:So I apologize if this isn't the right thread for this, but I didn't think it deserved it's own thread, and I didn't see one about speeding tickets before hand. Tonight I got my first speeding ticket ever tonight (I live in NC). I was doing 15 over in a 35. The cop didn't run my record or anything (it's clean except for one accident 9 years ago in Ohio), but told me I could go to court and ask for a PFJ (Prayer for Judgment). Either that or I can get an attorney (For a $171 ticket, that seems a little extreme). Can someone explain to me what the best procedure to handle this is? I obviously don't want it to hit my insurance rates, and I've got no problem just paying the fee outright and not having it hit my record. If I'm reading the various pages I've found right, in order to avoid points on your insurance, you'll need to plead it down to 10 over or less, or take the PfJ. Since you posted this 6 days ago, you've probably gotten the lawyers' solicitations, one of them might not be a bad idea if you want to save the PfJ in case you need it in the next three years. Presumably, you should be able to handle the PfJ yourself. Out of morbid curiosity, was this on Six Forks?
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2011 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
momtartin posted:I have gotten a ton of lawyer solicitations, and I'm contemplating taking that, especially if I can get this new job I interviewed for. How hard is it to get the PJC though? I get the impression that PfJs are mind-numbingly routine, but that's based purely on how many of my friends & acquaintances over the years have gotten them, and not any actual knowledge. Dude, bottom of the hill on Millbrook is the single most famous speed trap in all of Raleigh, there's a reason no one speeds on that section of road.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2011 23:11
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:Second, the United States Court system is based upon the premise that anybody, whether rich, poor, giant company, or your next door neighbor, can have access to a court system that treats everyone the same. It is the one place to take greivances, big or small, and address injustice. Tort reform necessarily changes the playing field, by arbitrarily restricting access to the courts, or capping the remedies available, without relation to the facts of the case. This disproportionally favors the wealthy, who benefit from caps and restricted court access the most. The wealthy get enough breaks as it is. This is self-serving bullshit. Not that tort reform as generally presented is going to do any favors for the poor, but let's not pretend that the system as it is treats everyone the same. Unless you're wronged by deep pockets, the price of obtaining justice is far out of reach for too many citizens. Think about how often the advice in this very thread is "it's not worth it" because the costs of justice exceed the harm done. Most of those costs have been imposed not by wealthy litigants, but by lawyers, judges(who are virtually all lawyers), or legislators(the vast majority? lawyers). I do take to heart the argument of not tilting the balance between potential litigants, it's something I'd not really considered before. But it'd be nice, if, once in a while, the volume of the legal trade was pruned back, so to speak.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2011 22:32
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:The problem with "pruning back" the volume of lawsuits Don't want to do that, actually. I said legal trade because I was trying to condense a paragraph of exposition to a one off sentence. Didn't work, I guess. What I want, is to prune back the volume of... let's say billable hours. This thread frequently advises folks of the simple things they can do for themselves, and I'd like that answer to be more common. I wish folks could actually represent themselves pro se more often, without it being a horribly bad idea. I'd like it if companies didn't feel a need run things past their lawyers before doing them. I think that it's Kafkaesque that to prevent messy, lawyer infested divorces the solution is: lawyers before the wedding! I'd appreciate it if lawyers didn't have control over how many lawyers can practice law, both through the bar, and through control of law schools. The whole situation just seems like a trap. The system as a whole keeps adding lawyers to things that aren't necessarily helped by legal thinking, and makes it harder for laymen to know whether they are obeying the law, and its precedents. Does this seem less "talking out both side of my mouth?" I'd also like to take a moment to say that this: Solomon Grundy posted:If they can't afford it, that is a social ill that is separate from the court function.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2011 09:02
|
|
|
I just wanted to thank this thread for its great reading value. My car was towed last night by my own apartment complex, but I remembered a discussion of the law in NM requiring a posted sign, not just a painted symbol to qualify as proper handicapped parking. NC has the same wording in it's statue, and this thread just saved me $100. Now if they'll just put up a proper sign so that there will actually be two proper handicapped spaces here for both my mom and our neighbor.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2012 15:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
As a purely hypothetical, Let us imagine a goon is trying to deal with his mother's estate in N. Carolina, county of Wake. He is her only child, she died intestate, and he is therefore her sole heir. In applying for letters of administration, he is expected to provide an initial inventory of the assets of the estate. The estate's assets are 3 bank accounts across 2 banks, a car, and personal property. The problem is that this hypothetical goon has no drat how much money is in the account at the second bank. His mother opened this account to specifically hide the amount from herself so she wouldn't want to spend it. This goon specifically went to that bank, and was told he couldn't get that information without letters of testamentary. This was also where he found out about the existence of letters of testamentary. So, when filling out the paperwork, what duties to find out more information before applying for letters would this goon have? What answer should this hypothetical goon give to the value of that asset? How annoyed should he be that the vaguest hints he has as to its value makes him probably unable to use NC's simplified estate settlement by collection because it exceeds the maximum value of that procedure? How much should such a goon expect to pay an attorney to make this annoyance go away? Is $295 for the first hour a lot? PURELY HYPOTHETICAL ahem.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 21:05
|
|