Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Tech Stock Options -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Walsh who wrote (30478)	12/5/1997 1:40:00 PM
From: Kevin	Respond to of 58727

Thanks Kevin. I've now had three people confirm my original thoughts when I saw the new ticket and the sweet note that came with it. They really kiss your ass when they know how badly they screwed up.

To: Kevin Walsh who wrote (30478)	12/5/1997 2:21:00 PM
From: Alan Smithee	Respond to of 58727

One other issue on Kevin's ticket: In Washington State, the officer's declaration on the ticket is admissible in evidence. So frequently, the officer's presence isn't needed. That's why I'd think it important if the new ticket was filled out by another officer or an administrative flunkey. If it wasn't completed by the person who saw the alleged violation, there's no evidentiary basis for the charges. Whatever you do, don't subpoena the officer to the hearing. When I was contesting a ticket last year (successfully), some idiot had subpoenaed the state trooper to appear. Turned out the cop hadn't signed the declaration, and it would've been thrown out. With a live body in the witness chair, he just testified about what he saw. The guy got tagged for the ticket.