|
mr.belowaverage posted:instead of offering help.
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:47 |
|
|
mr.belowaverage posted:I tried to write a sane reply to all the above posts but it's impossible. Obviously no one has any answers to offer, only tips on not being a dumbass, which is akin to asking about cream for a rash, and being told to wear long clothing in the woods. And there we go "WHAAAAAAAAAAA WHY ARE PEOPLE GIVING GENERAL ADVICE TO HELP THE AUDIENCE!!! ALL POSTS SHOULD BE ABOUT GIVING ME FREE INSTRUCTIONS CONFIRMING MY PLAN IS A GOOD ONE!" Mr.Belowaverage, you received specific advice from many posters, including myself, saying that your plan on hunting this guy down probably will not get you any money back but just consume more of your time and effort. This is an answer, it's not the one you want to hear. Please stop complaining about our efforts to educate other posters on how to avoid the problems you find yourself facing. e: I doubt you're going to get anything more after antagonizing all of us (keep in mind lawyers are the types of people who must win every conversation) so it's probably best to just make a graceful exit from the thread at this point. Soylent Pudding fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Feb 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
You made a mistake that is for all practical purposes unfixable. For your benefit we've explained why you should let go and move on. For the benefit of everyone else reading, we've explained why your mistake was dumb and what should be done to avoid it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
Also some (most?) process serving companies offer skip trace and/or location services, which you probably know cause you've called them and found out it costs more than it'd be worth for 2,000$, and are looking for a different answer
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:I called you dumb at the very end of my posts after detailing pretty thoroughly the procedural hurdles that make a 2 grand claim uneconomical, stop crying that people aren't being sufficiently helpful because you're not getting the answers you want You probably provided the most helpful reasonable post. But it had nothing to do with what I was asking. I appreciate all your effort, but I'm not looking to be told if I should claim or not. If there's an investigations thread, let me know. terrorist ambulance posted:Also some (most?) process serving companies offer skip trace and/or location services, which you probably know cause you've called them and found out it costs more than it'd be worth for 2,000$, and are looking for a different answer Not sure. I have looked at online fee schedules, and they seem to charge as they go. I assume for an investigator, having an email address, business name, two cell numbers and bank info would be more than enough. I asking if there are investigators tools I can use myself - I have not been able to find them on my own. Soylent Pudding posted:e: I doubt you're going to get anything more after antagonizing all of us (keep in mind lawyers are the types of people who must win every conversation) so it's probably best to just make a graceful exit from the thread at this point. Lollin at that. I really am not trying to antagonize, just surprised to get needlessly called an idiot over a mistake I admit is my own fault. mr.belowaverage fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Feb 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
I miss Pookie. Can we have Pookie back?NancyPants posted:We mainly just use diamond shaped ones at stop lights in my area. Are those ones a speed trap, do you know? I've never seen them in that configuration. I don't have a clue. I just know that they are pressure sensors of some kind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
-
Starpluck fucked around with this message at 08:30 on Apr 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
Starpluck posted:So I went to the judge today regarding my FasTrak violation I posted earlier in the thread (charged as a HOV violation under VC 21655.5(b)). I plead guilty and agreed with what the officer said as an established fact of what happened. For the explanation, I highlighted it was my first traffic-offense, reiterated the fact that newer interstates have a sign indicating "ExpressPass required" and the one I was ticketed in lacked the indication that I needed a transponder. I told her the digital signs painted the impression to me that a payment would be made at the toll-booth or at the end of the highway, and the capacity to understand the FasTrak quite limited for their signs as it is not mentioned once in DMV manual. With this in mind, I concluded that it was an honest mistake I made under those conditions that I promise not to repeat, it being my first traffic-related offense ever. This was just a summary of what I said in court. Woo hoo! Nicely done.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
"Be upfront and polite" is almost a cheat code in cases where your outcome hangs on one person's mood, be it a judge or a cop or whoever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
Javid posted:"Be upfront and polite" is almost a cheat code in cases where your outcome hangs on one person's mood, be it a judge or a cop or whoever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
mr.belowaverage posted:edit for above: I think most of the responses are written from the perspective that filing a claim will take a lot of time and effort, and the chances of recovery are not terrific. When you charge by the hour, those are extremely relevant concerns. If you want to sue the guy as a side project, and don't mind sinking the time into it, there's no harm in pursuing it. Maybe you'll luck out and he'll actually be worth something. Also, if you do get judgment, try to find someone he is working for. If Ontario is like Alberta, you can garnishee that person and they are required (subject to a whole bunch of things) to pay you instead of him. If nothing else, it's a learning experience. Edit: it also appears that once you have a writ against the guy, you can do a name search at the land registry to see if he owns any real property. The next time he refinances his mortgage, or sells it, or dies, he'll have to pay up and get the writ removed. ( http://www.gov.on.ca/fr/information_bundle/land_registration/content/ONT06_024544.html ) None of which is legal advice. Schitzo fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Feb 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
^^ He's an idiot dude, and you are mistaken. He already had the learning experience, and I'm guessing you haven't attempted collections. You'd tell him to move along. It's not about attorney's fees, I'm assuming he's pro se.mr.belowaverage posted:@woozle wuzzle: Yer dumb dude. Like I think people have been extra harsh in this thread lately to people who haven't deserved it. But you're really loving stupid. In case you misunderstand me, what with being dumb, I'm not saying you're stupid for paying him. I don't know the details of his scam, so all I can say is it can happen to anyone. I don't look down on you at all for that transaction. So set aside the strawman victimization thing. I'm talking about your course of action right now, which is stupid and you will regret it. I'm telling you: you will regret not dropping this. Do you think this is his first scam? Do you think you'll be his first lawsuit? Will it send him rushing to pay you when he <gasp> gets court PAPERWORK!? Do you think he gives a flying poo poo about having one more lawsuit against him? Did you even look up local judgments against him? Or his criminal record? Again, I'm not talking about then, but now... do you know where you stand in line to get paid? Since you haven't, I'll tell you: You'll be exactly 29th in line, with 1-13 being tax liens. What's that? Tax liens you say? You think he pays taxes? Do you think your judgment comes first? How exactly do you propose to take assets from a drifter conman who owes priority creditors like child support? Do you know how easy it is to open a new bank account? Again, do you think you're his first scam? (edit1: feel free to not respond and gently caress off. The help you asked for is to forget about it and move on. That's the correct answer. That's it. That's the right answer. That puts the most money in your pocket. I'm telling you, in a year you'll look back and say "yup, that weasel whacko poster was a jerk, but he was right".) (edit2: the irritation you're experiencing from us is that we know the answer. I'm not guessing. I do this poo poo for a living. People walk in my door and pay good money to think they know better and ignore my correct advice. So when I do it for free, and you still ignore the correct advice, then I'm not financially obligated to be nice to you. You get the truth (that you're an idiot) for free.) woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 06:22 on Feb 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 05:51
|
|
|
mr.belowaverage posted:You probably provided the most helpful reasonable post. But it had nothing to do with what I was asking. I appreciate all your effort, but I'm not looking to be told if I should claim or not. If there's an investigations thread, let me know. For what it's worth, you could file a complaint with your local consumer protection agency, which I assume is this one: http://www.sse.gov.on.ca/mcs/en/Pages/Complaint_Steps_to_File.aspx You almost certainly won't recover anything, though. There is a search function, too: http://www.consumerbeware.mgs.gov.on.ca/catsct/start.do?lang=en
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 07:10
|
|
|
To be fair, he could probably get/register a default judgment pretty easily given how straightforward everything seems to be. If he's really really lucky, he might stand a chance to recover a few bucks. But given that the guy is an unlicensed contractor, he likely a) doesn't have many assets, meaning most of his poo poo would be excluded from judgment enforcement; b) has a bunch of secured creditors (and prior judgments) with first dibs on all his poo poo; and c) doesn't get paid all that much above the board, meaning what income you can find would be unlikely to be garnished. But if he's doing it as a self rep in small claims, he's not really losing anything but his time, and it might make him feel better about getting ripped off. bub spank fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Feb 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 07:48
|
|
|
You are forgetting filing fees and service fees besides his time ( assuming his jurisdiction is similar to mine). In my jurisdiction if would be over $200 just to start the suit. euphronius fucked around with this message at 14:56 on Feb 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 14:53
|
|
|
Couldn't he just add those on to the amount he is suing for? Still, $200 for small claims court is crazy, in my jurisdiction it's $26 to file a case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
mr.belowaverage, I am not a lawyer but I have been in a situation similar to yours (wanting to recover damages from someone for the poo poo they did). Instead of asking on the internet I went and found a real live lawyer and paid them for a consultation and offered to give them money to help me, and their response was pretty much exactly what you are getting here. Seriously, they said 'If you pursue this you are going to spend months fighting about it and it is going to get drawn out in court forever, you will spend even more money on fees (and paying me) and ultimately you are probably never going to collect anything from this person and you will simply be out the additional time and money. You would be better off spending that time getting a part-time job, because you would recover the money quicker. Also this is such a waste of time I won't take your case.' Here's the kicker - in my case it wasn't some dodgy fly-by-night conman, it was a crappy landlord. So I had the advantages of knowing exactly where they lived and where to serve them, and they had concrete assets to deal with (their house). Even then, it was a bad idea because they were already in foreclosure and even if I managed to win and get a lien on their property I would have been behind like eight other people and gotten nothing. You are getting good advice here, sorry that your situation is poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:Couldn't he just add those on to the amount he is suing for? Yeah, he can ask for them. He's probably even entitled to them. There's just no way in hell he'll be able to collect so why bother?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
I'm a contract dummy so for my own education could someone please explain why this would be a straight forward case like a couple of folks mentioned it would be? He paid the guy the deposit and then he decided he didn't want the work done. I mean I certainly understand why he changed his mind but can't the roofer argue that he is entitled to the deposit since he was willing to do the work?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
burf posted:To be fair, he could probably get/register a default judgment pretty easily given how straightforward everything seems to be. Aside from the practical and financial aspects of service and default judgments: There's an emotional toll to getting scammed. It's a severe punch to the wallet and ego. Rather than ignoring the emotional side, I think that chasing after the scammer compounds the injury. The scammer will always win. They entered the scam with the endgame planned out. His assets are already hidden or easily moved. Hands down, this roofer conman will outrun any attempt at collections. But getting a judgment keeps the hope alive for the victim. It keeps it on the person's mind, so that 5 years later they're still wondering if the judgment will ever bear fruit. It festers and boils, keeping the issue alive and prevents them from mentally moving past it. That's way worse than just cauterizing the wound and moving on. Get it out of mind. Say gently caress that roofer guy, maybe report it to local licensing, then drop it. He's lost the money with or without a judgment, so just stop investing mental energy into it. Let's say it's 2 hours of time and $50 in court fees to file the paperwork: it just means the roofer extracted that much more from the scam. The self-blame of the victim only gets worse, like a bug struggling in a web and tangling itself further. In 5 years, he'd pay $2k to go back in time and just have dropped the matter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
I think some of these replies were a lot more constructive and less intentionally insulting. FWIW, and I mentioned it above, it's $75 to file here. And I have the flexibility to appear in a few settlement conferences time-wise. I would rather write off the loss with a judgement and little hope of collecting than without any judgement and zero hope of collecting. Between posting yesterday, I was finally able to dig up his company licence. Very obfuscated process to find here, but I now have that and can get an address, for an $8 fee, from it. My total expenditure now would be $83. I believe I have to pay another fee to file for a judgement to garnish if he's in default of the order, but it's summary and inexpensive from what I understand. As far as being a practiced scammer, and hiding his assets, I'm not sure where you're getting that idea. I definitely believe there are lots of scammers who take money up front with no intention of doing the work, but this guy was pissed when I started talking about not giving him the job. I truly believe he is a legitimate worker who wanted the job of roofing my house, and now we're just in a contract dispute. I'm curious; does a significant percentage of valid small claims get talked out of going to court by professional representatives because of the low success rates, your experiences? I wonder how much owed money is out there in the hands of scammers who trade on the fact that attorneys won't represent the little guy if he gets taken for less than five figures. Sir John Falstaff posted:There is a search function, too: Ran this. No matches on his own or his company name. One drywaller with his same first name has four separate complaints against him, yikes. mr.belowaverage fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Feb 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
mr.belowaverage posted:I'm curious; does a significant percentage of valid small claims get talked out of going to court by professional representatives because of the low success rates, your experiences? I wonder how much owed money is out there in the hands of scammers who trade on the fact that attorneys won't represent the little guy if he gets taken for less than five figures. My firm will take less than five figured quite often when we expect there to be a chance of recovery. I think this thread expects him to be a scammer because you mentioned things like his being unlicensed in the area. Since you're trying to sue him personally I believe we're also assuming his corporation is unregistered and thus has no registered agent for service of process. That also screams scam.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
That makes sense. How does one confirm a contractor is licensed? This guys ads claim he is licensed and insured, and cite the various bodies. The reason I though he was unlicensed after the fact was because the business association for my city and his city (neighbouring), both said they had no listing for him or his business. But then I found his registration in the province yesterday. Seems needlessly hard to find and confirm for both a victim of fraud, or someone checking out their contractors up front.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
mr.belowaverage posted:
This is a misrepresentation of the things people have been saying. I would happily represent such a person. What I think has been said in this thread is that be most attorneys will not do a case similar to yours for free or based on contingency, which should have been obvious to you anyway. euphronius fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Feb 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
mr.belowaverage posted:The reason I though he was unlicensed after the fact was because the business association for my city and his city (neighbouring), both said they had no listing for him or his business. But then I found his registration in the province yesterday. The local business association isn't the provincial licensing authority. You didn't find his listing because you weren't looking in the right place, it's as simple as that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
mr.belowaverage posted:I'm curious; does a significant percentage of valid small claims get talked out of going to court by professional representatives because of the low success rates, your experiences? I wonder how much owed money is out there in the hands of scammers who trade on the fact that attorneys won't represent the little guy if he gets taken for less than five figures. It's not the low success rate, it's the low return on hours worked. Few attorneys and even fewer good attorneys will take a case like yours without you paying them $500-$1000 first. That money is gone, whether you win or lose. If you do receive any money from the defendant, whatever work the attorney did over the initial retainer will come off the top and you get what's left. Unfortunately, there is a small percentage of attorneys who will blow smoke up your rear end and take money out of your wallet rather then explaining to you why you're on the short end of the cost-benefit analysis stick. The good attorney will refuse to let you throw good money after bad (even when you want to throw the money at the attorney) The attorneys in this thread who have been telling you the same thing have been giving you the short, short, not-my-client, internet comedy forum version of that same talk. Luckily for you, you're not a little enough guy to get free legal services. If you're looking at going to jail or prison and you have no money, there are attorneys to help the little guys. If you're about to get evicted, maybe there'll be an attorney to help. If you have discretionary income to get screwed out of, you're out of luck in terms of free or significantly below market value representation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
mr.belowaverage posted:One drywaller with his same first name has four separate complaints against him, yikes. Yeah--I think one of the reasons people jumped to "it's a scam" is simply that it's a ridiculously common thing. I worked at an attorney general's office one summer (which performed a lot of the same consumer protection work as that agency seems to perform), and probably about a third of all the work we did was home renovation scams.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
mr.belowaverage posted:I'm curious; does a significant percentage of valid small claims get talked out of going to court by professional representatives because of the low success rates, your experiences? I wonder how much owed money is out there in the hands of scammers who trade on the fact that attorneys won't represent the little guy if he gets taken for less than five figures. It's not talking people out of a system. It's just knowing the reality of the system. I know how the system works, you don't. I'm a doctor giving you a definitive diagnosis, and you're arguing back. The system does not do what you think it does. I do garnishments, I do not think the other regular attorneys here work in this specific practice area. You will not get paid. I know that for a fact, you don't. We haven't even gotten into garnishments yet: it's not remotely as simple as you seem to think. It's not about attorneys failing to represent people. If you took your head out of your rear end for a second you'd realize it's the opposite: LOTS of attorneys will take people's money to chase ghosts. That's the norm. The exception is an attorney being honest with you, telling you that you're a total loving moron. That's me. Consider yourself lucky. You're not getting the answer that you want (which is to cheer you on in this stupid white whale quest that will net you negative $83 Canadian beaver bucks), and you're actually dumb enough to blame that on bias or whatever. The bias clearly runs counter to my advice. When a little old lady wants to pay me $1000 cash to chase a roofing contractor, the smart thing to do is take her money, while the moral thing to do is tell her the truth. *Note to other practitioners, many seeing little harm in the collection attempt: Beyond the other myriad of collection issues, local exemptions also come into play. That's why my answer is definitive. It varies by state/country, but typically the assets of a normal person are protected from creditor collections, with the main exception being wages (for middle-class and under). But the roofer has no wages to garnish. So there is literally no way to collect against the guy. It's also a situation where the SOL is a blessing rather than a curse. Once his 2-3 years has passed without suing, then he can blame the SOL and mentally let go of it. There's nothing more to be done, so the chapter is closed. But once reduced to judgment, it becomes a white whale of collections for his lifetime. The splinter is never removed. The sunk cost fallacy that has him sue in the first place only snowballs, with the injury growing over time (literally with judgment interest). It compounds and extends the emotional trauma of the scam. That's why it can be a real injustice to encourage cients to sue without realistic hope of collecting. I've been the "bad guy" before in telling people to let it go, then I get their lifetime of business when they process it and realize I turned down their cash for their own good. woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Feb 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
My firm is one of the few in the county doing collections as well. We're good at chasing people down. Yet we would insist on a retainer if Mr.belowaverage was desperate that we take his money because good luck recovering from shady contractors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
First off, I live in Washington I recently moved out of my apartment I lived in for a year. We had a deposit of 500 dollars and a 200 pet deposit. We got a cat that, to our displeasure, clawed up the carpet in one of the doorways so we knew we were at least not getting the pet deposit back. As per our contract, I gave our landlord over 20 days notice for our moveout, and scheduled a walk through for our last day. I call her the day before to remind her of the walkthrough, and she doesn't answer. The next day, I call her, and she never shows. I get her on the phone and she says something came up but she did the walkthrough on her own and the carpet damage was the only problem. She needed to get an estimate on how much repairs would be and then she'd let me know how much of my deposit I would get back. At the end of that week, I called her, and never heard anything back. The next week I called twice, both of which were never returned. I went to the office twice over the next two weeks and called her once a week to see if she would get back to me. I left my forewarding address in writing in the mailbox and on voicemail, as well as forwarding my mail to my new address. Never heard anything back. I called her again yesterday (again, over a month later) and, surprise, she actually picked up. She said, however, that I was only getting 50 dollars back. I told her that this was untrue citing this law: quote:RCW 59.18.280 She said she sent it to the wrong address and it got returned, then never felt the need to return my calls. Basically, all I'm wondering is if I have a case for getting my full deposit back, especially because she won't prove what she spent this money on. I was willing to pay for the damages, but after over a month of dodging me, I'm not feeling so charitable. Thanks for the help in advance. monkeyboydc fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Feb 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
mr.belowaverage posted:That makes sense. How does one confirm a contractor is licensed? This guys ads claim he is licensed and insured, and cite the various bodies. The reason I though he was unlicensed after the fact was because the business association for my city and his city (neighbouring), both said they had no listing for him or his business. But then I found his registration in the province yesterday. In california, we have this https://www2.cslb.ca.gov/onlineservices/checklicenseII/checklicense.aspx I suspect other places have similar things. That said, I'm jumping on the you're hosed train. If he hasn't hidden assets, he's probably judgment proof. Actually, what I'd do in California is call the police if he claimed to be license and wasn't. That that is a crime that is prosecuted in this state, and you'd be able to get restitution without paying poo poo. Plus criminal restitution is more likely to get paid (as you go to jail if you don't in some cases) and harder to discharge in bankruptcy. Dunno if Canada has anything like it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
Just to drive the point home, I decided to look up the exemption limits in Ontario, Canada. Even if you get service, then if you get judgment, then if you find property, then if you get service to seize the property, then if you actually seize the property (all of which are unlikely to impossible in this case) THEN the property can still be exempt from collections by law. That's the kicker. That's why a person living on the edge is judgment proof, both in practical effect and by operation of law. In Canada, judgment creditors have the right to seek garnishment of wages and seizure of property. Welp he has no wages. For property, each province in Canada sets its own exemptions limits on personal property, just as each state does in the U.S. From the Execution Act of Ontario (R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER E.24): quote:Exemptions What are the prescribed amounts you ask? Well, hold on to your butts: Clothing $5,600.00 Household Goods $11,300.00 Tools of the Trade $11,300.00 Farmers $28,300.00 Motor Vehicle $5,650.00 Those are current market values for the equity in his used personal property. So. Yeah.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
My sister picked up three DUIs over 10 years ago and has since been driving around without a license because it is more economically viable for her to spend a few days in jail and pay some minor court fees if she gets busted than to pay what it would cost to get her license back. I don't know the details, but I guess it involves hefty reinstatement fees, cost of a DUI class, and maybe some other fees. She would like to get her license, but the costs are well over a grand and out of her reach. Would hiring a lawyer to talk to a judge about getting her fees reduced to something manageable be cost effective? If it would end up costing more than what it would be to just pay the state, how much might it cost for her to just talk to a lawyer to find out how she would go about getting a hearing and what she should say to the judge to get the reinstatement costs down to something she can afford? This is Minnesota.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:My sister picked up three DUIs over 10 years ago and has since been driving around without a license because it is more economically viable for her to spend a few days in jail and pay some minor court fees if she gets busted than to pay what it would cost to get her license back. I don't know the details, but I guess it involves hefty reinstatement fees, cost of a DUI class, and maybe some other fees. She would like to get her license, but the costs are well over a grand and out of her reach. Would hiring a lawyer to talk to a judge about getting her fees reduced to something manageable be cost effective? If it would end up costing more than what it would be to just pay the state, how much might it cost for her to just talk to a lawyer to find out how she would go about getting a hearing and what she should say to the judge to get the reinstatement costs down to something she can afford? This is Minnesota. Never ever ever do anything that could be remotely construed as enabling or assisting your sister to drive while unlicensed and uninsured. I know that's not the answer to the question you asked, but it's an important answer nevertheless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
Starpluck posted:This seems to be my only recourse at this point for a HOV violation as it's a clear-cut case of violating the law. No longer need further advice at this point. I occasionally travel to CA and every time I run across one of those tolls, there's also a bunch of other signs posted along the way that say things like "fastrak only" and "cash only" lanes, then when you actually get to the tolls, there's signs above all the lanes saying the same thing. That was enough for me to figure out that I need to go into the cash lanes. It's cool you got it removed but I mentioned the lack of mention about all the other signs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Would hiring a lawyer to talk to a judge about getting her fees reduced to something manageable be cost effective? SkunkDuster posted:If it would end up costing more than what it would be to just pay the state, how much might it cost for her to just talk to a lawyer to find out how she would go about getting a hearing SkunkDuster posted:and what she should say to the judge to get the reinstatement costs down to something she can afford? SkunkDuster posted:My sister picked up three DUIs over 10 years ago and has since been driving around without a license because it is more economically viable for her to spend a few days in jail and pay some minor court fees if she gets busted than to pay what it would cost to get her license back. caveat: MN may work differently. e: VVVVVVV MN Limited License joat mon fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Feb 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
I know such a thing as a 'hardship license' exists, but not what it involves or anything. But that's a direction maybe worth examining.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
joat mon posted:No, the fees aren't fines that a judge could reduce, they are administrative fees that are set by statute. The reinstatement fees, no. The fines keeping her license from being reinstated, maybe. I've seen them converted to community service or even jail time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 02:47
|
|
|
I live in Massachusetts. I got a 3-point speeding ticket in New York. I'm going to have a lawyer handle this whole thing, but I'm still wondering: Massachusetts is going to find out about this and raise my insurance rate if I'm convicted of the offense, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 02:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:47 |
|
|
chemosh6969 posted:I occasionally travel to CA and every time I run across one of those tolls, there's also a bunch of other signs posted along the way that say things like "fastrak only" and "cash only" lanes, then when you actually get to the tolls, there's signs above all the lanes saying the same thing. That was enough for me to figure out that I need to go into the cash lanes. There are no "cash lanes" (there are ultimately no toll booths). There are no "other signs." There are simply signs saying the designated lanes are "Fastrak Express Lanes" and indicating the current toll (it's variable). If you don't already know the term "Fastrak" refers to a transponder-only toll system, there's no way to tell from the signage as you enter that you cannot pay cash (at least along the I-15; the newer lanes along the 110 have at least one sign mentioning the transponder requirement). All this information has already been discussed so I'm puzzled about what "lack of mention" you refer to. Also FWIW most Fastrak toll violations are fined somewhere around $60 + max toll; Being hit with a $500 HOV violation instead is extra lovely. I'm glad to hear it got dismissed!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 03:15
|
|
