• filter:

Appealed a Ticket for Alleged Violation of Law X: But My Hearing Officer Upheld Ticket Based on Law Y

  • Text Only
  • Search this Topic »
rated:
I appealed a ticket for an alleged violation of Law X. My Hearing Officer subsequently upheld ticket.  But he IGNORED Law X altogether (It's NOT even mentioned in his so-called "findings").  Instead, he found me liable for a violation of Law X based on Law Y.

But it's even worse than that.  The Hearing Officer ALTERED a portion of Law Y, since I would've been found NOT liable under Law Y in its original form.

WTF?

Now I'm appealing to a Superior Court.

Anybody with a similar experience to share?

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.
rated:

rated:
IDontPayRetail said:   OP, just mow your lawn:

https://www.fatwallet.com/forums/finance/1573001

  what lawn is there to mow? wasn't that already done?

rated:
Company Z did Y to me today. Not even, it decided to change Y to P. I complained to Q, but Q charged me with F.

WTF?

Now I'm appealing to R.

Anyone with a similar experience to share?

rated:
I love Mad-Libs

Law X = Porno Shoot without a License
Law Y = Filming on Public Property

rated:
forbin4040 said:   I love Mad-Libs

Law X = Porno Shoot without a License
Law Y = Filming on Public Property

  even if those laws were similar, a hearing officer wouldn't get to find you liable for Porno Shoot w/o a License, based on Filming on Public Property, assuming you were charged solely with Porno Shoot w/o a License. 

that would violate procedural due process, since you weren't given proper notice that you would be tried for the FPP law.  Without notice you wouldn't be able to defend yourself against the charge. Lacking a defense, you would lose pretty much 100% of the time.  government could consistently bulldoze you, and you wouldn't be able to do much (if anything) about it.

additionally, a hearing officer wouldn't get to ALTER a portion of the Filming on Public Property law, so that he could find you liable for a violation of the Porno law.

hearing officer LACKS unilateral legislative power.  and IMPARTIALITY demands separation of legislative and judicial duties.  he doesn't get to do both.

his job is to determine facts and apply EXISTING law, even if he doesn't agree with it or believes that it will cause an outcome he dislikes.

rated:
merep said:   
forbin4040 said:   I love Mad-Libs

Law X = Porno Shoot without a License
Law Y = Filming on Public Property

  even if those laws were similar, a hearing officer wouldn't get to find you liable for Porno Shoot w/o a License, based on Filming on Public Property, assuming you were charged solely with Porno Shoot w/o a License. 

that would violate procedural due process, since you weren't given proper notice that you would be tried for the FPP law.  Without notice you wouldn't be able to defend yourself against the charge. Lacking a defense, you would lose pretty much 100% of the time.  government could consistently bulldoze you, and you wouldn't be able to do much (if anything) about it.

additionally, a hearing officer wouldn't get to ALTER a portion of the Filming on Public Property law, so that he could find you liable for a violation of the Porno law.

hearing officer LACKS unilateral legislative power.  and IMPARTIALITY demands separation of legislative and judicial duties.  he doesn't get to do both.

his job is to determine facts and apply EXISTING law, even if hedoesn't agree with it or believes that it will cause an outcome he dislikes.

  Why are you telling us this? There's nothing related to finance whatsoever.

rated:
marginoferror said:   
merep said:   
forbin4040 said:   I love Mad-Libs

Law X = Porno Shoot without a License
Law Y = Filming on Public Property

  even if those laws were similar, a hearing officer wouldn't get to find you liable for Porno Shoot w/o a License, based on Filming on Public Property, assuming you were charged solely with Porno Shoot w/o a License. 

that would violate procedural due process, since you weren't given proper notice that you would be tried for the FPP law.  Without notice you wouldn't be able to defend yourself against the charge. Lacking a defense, you would lose pretty much 100% of the time.  government could consistently bulldoze you, and you wouldn't be able to do much (if anything) about it.

additionally, a hearing officer wouldn't get to ALTER a portion of the Filming on Public Property law, so that he could find you liable for a violation of the Porno law.

hearing officer LACKS unilateral legislative power.  and IMPARTIALITY demands separation of legislative and judicial duties.  he doesn't get to do both.

his job is to determine facts and apply EXISTING law, even if hedoesn't agree with it or believes that it will cause an outcome he dislikes.

  Why are you telling us this? There's nothing related to finance whatsoever.

  Did the other guy's post explicitly discuss finance?  Why would mine?  (Indirectly, it is about finance, however, since my local gov't is attempting to take my $ without a legal basis).

Also, have you seen threads in this forum? LOL!  are you new?

rated:
You created an alt-id just to post this useless post? Give us more detail or pics or it's /thread for you.

rated:
merep said:   
marginoferror said:   
merep said:   
 

  Why are you telling us this? There's nothing related to finance whatsoever.

  Did the other guy's post explicitly discuss finance?  Why would mine?  (Indirectly, it is about finance, however, since my local gov't is attempting to take my $ without a legal basis).

Also, have you seen threads in this forum? LOL!  are you new?

  You are new, Mr Alt-Id

It was either Porno shoot without a License, or Notifying you that you need to mow your grass using the wrong Civic Code.
I think Porno is more interesting.  And both are Finance related.

rated:
BostonOne said:   You created an alt-id just to post this useless post? Give us more detail or pics or it's /thread for you.
  given a ticket for Law X.

clearly argued that Law X lacked applicability to me.

hearing officer's response: Ticket Upheld.

Findings: I'm ignoring law for which you were cited. Instead, I've selected a similar-but-different law (Law Y). Then I've altered it (w/o any legal authority to do so).  Under the altered version of Law Y, you're liable for a violation of Law X.

hearing officer pulled that nonsense, since he works for a company that makes $$$ processing & "adjudicating" tickets for the gov't agency that issued the ticket.  (informally, I've heard that the company affirms 99% of tickets).

additionally, virtually nobody appeals these decisions to Superior Court. (I assume most of those get denied as well, since virtually nobody appeals to an Appellate Court.....It's about 75 miles away and is very strict about rules of procedure. To comply, most laypeople would need to devote multiple hours of study....or pay a lawyer $$$).

It's a nice little scam.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that the "Hearing Officer" left his/her signature line BLANK.  And his/her name appears NOWHERE on the "ruling."  For all I know, a hearing didn't even take place. Perhaps a computer program simply spit out some nonsense in favor of my gov't agency.

rated:
Good god, just post what law X, Y, and Z is. Otherwise, I shall find you in violation of FWF code XXX.

rated:
ZenNUTS said:   Good god, just post what law X, Y, and Z is. Otherwise, I shall find you in violation of FWF code XXX.
  That's peripheral. I created this thread to see whether anybody has won a similar appeal in a Superior Court (or similar).

rated:
X + .5 Y = -1 ( time + money + braincells )

rated:
jd2010 said:   X + .5 Y = -1 ( time + money + braincells )
  maybe but I get off on stuff like this.

this would give me an even bigger higher  if I were to take this to an appellate court, forcing a gov't lawyer to spend time preparing a brief and doing oral argument, over a civil infraction.  My high would go up at least 10x, if he were to lose this trivial case to a Pro Per.

rated:
I googled your case and looked at X and Y case files and my conclusion is you're guilty of violation of law XY. Do not pass Go. They will collect $200 or you go directly to jail.

rated:
anthonyu said:   I googled your case and looked at X and Y case files and my conclusion is you're guilty of violation of law XY. Do not pass Go. They will collect $200 or you go directly to jail.
  you looked at the wrong case. this is a civil infraction. there's no standard of guilt.  jail time is not an option.

 

rated:
Circle gets the square!

rated:
merep said:   
ZenNUTS said:   Good god, just post what law X, Y, and Z is. Otherwise, I shall find you in violation of FWF code XXX.
  That's peripheral. I created this thread to see whether anybody has won a similar appeal in a Superior Court (or similar).

   What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having reading it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

rated:
merep said:   jd2010 said:   X + .5 Y = -1 ( time + money + braincells )
  maybe but I get off on stuff like this.

this would give me an even bigger higher  if I were to take this to an appellate court, forcing a gov't lawyer to spend time preparing a brief and doing oral argument, over a civil infraction.  My high would go up at least 10x, if he were to lose this trivial case to a Pro Per.

So you are the guy who had a billion dollar business in some sort of mortgage disclosure and selling lawsuits?

rated:
MilleniumBuc said:   So you are the guy who had a billion dollar business in some sort of mortgage disclosure and selling lawsuits?
He's the guy that refused to mow his grass ... because it was too hot.  
  

rated:
MilleniumBuc said:   
merep said:   
jd2010 said:   X + .5 Y = -1 ( time + money + braincells )
  maybe but I get off on stuff like this.

this would give me an even bigger higher  if I were to take this to an appellate court, forcing a gov't lawyer to spend time preparing a brief and doing oral argument, over a civil infraction.  My high would go up at least 10x, if he were to lose this trivial case to a Pro Per.

So you are the guy who had a billion dollar business in some sort of mortgage disclosure and selling lawsuits?

  No, FWF tracked that guy down because that suit was public. It was low millions in his father adding his name to the father's lawsuit. This is the guy who won't cut his grass.

rated:
you are found guilty of x, and sentenced to YYZ



rated:
ZenNUTS said:   
merep said:   
ZenNUTS said:   Good god, just post what law X, Y, and Z is. Otherwise, I shall find you in violation of FWF code XXX.
  That's peripheral. I created this thread to see whether anybody has won a similar appeal in a Superior Court (or similar).

   What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having reading it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

  That's a lot of melodrama.  But I guess that's necessary when you know you're wrong.

The exact laws are irrelevant.  What's important is that the Hearing Officer didn't discuss the ordinance for which I was cited.  I want to know whether anybody has successfully appealed a case where a Hearing Officer found somebody liable for Law X, without even mentioning it, and upheld the ticket based solely on a discussion of Law Y.

If you're still confused, I can't help you.

rated:
I think it's time to stop eating Cuckoo Puffs.

rated:
You know what they'd do here? Mow your grass for you and send you a bill.

rated:
merep said:   I appealed a ticket for an alleged violation of Law X. My Hearing Officer subsequently upheld ticket.  But he IGNORED Law X altogether (It's NOT even mentioned in his so-called "findings").  Instead, he found me liable for a violation of Law X based on Law Y.

But it's even worse than that.  The Hearing Officer ALTERED a portion of Law Y, since I would've been found NOT liable under Law Y in its original form.

WTF?

Now I'm appealing to a Superior Court.

Anybody with a similar experience to share?

  yes

rated:
scrouds said:   You know what they'd do here? Mow your grass for you and send you a bill.
  they already got a illegitimate warrant and mowed my so-called "grass."

but that's peripheral.

the warrant was based on the ticket.  but the ticket was issued by County for an alleged violation of ordinance (X), one that PLAINLY limits itself to UNincorporated areas.  I argued the ticket was therefore invalid, since (1) the cited property is in an INcorporated city and (2) no City ordinance authorizes County to enforce the cited code within the City's limits.

Hearing Officer (HO) IGNORED those arguments.  He then focused on a different County law (Y).  But that law also limits itself to UNincorporated areas.  Based on a "Memo of Understanding" (between County Fire and County Land Services), the Hearing Officer ALTERED Y to make it "apply" to my City. 

He can't do that.  One, a "Memo of Understanding" between County agencies is NOT a recognized method of revision/amendment to city/county ordinances.  Second, the people who signed the MOU LACKED legislative power.  Third, nobody from my city signed the document.  Fourth, revisions or alterations to city/county ordinances must comply with very specific laws mentioned in my state's gov't code.  Neither the MOU nor his alteration complied with those laws.

What's also interesting is that he said he found "photographs" of the alleged violation "particularly compelling."  But he didn't say the MOU extended Law X to INcorporated properties, only that the MOU extended Law Y to INcorporated properties.  That means he found photos of an INcoporated-area property to be strong evidence of said property violating Law X, an ordinance that specifically limits itself to UNincorporated areas (As I said, that's NOT something he disputed). Ultimately, that means the evidence doesn't support the HO's decision to uphold the ticket for a violation of Law X.  (Incidentally, the MOU doesn't extend either law.  But that's a side issue).

rated:
It's a slam dunk law suit for you. Have fun.

And don't forget to perform a citizen's arrest on the judge when s/he rules against you.

rated:
weseka said:   
scrouds said:   You know what they'd do here? Mow your grass for you and send you a bill.
  they already got a illegitimate warrant and mowed my so-called "grass."

but that's peripheral.

the warrant was based on the ticket.  but the ticket was issued by County for an alleged violation of ordinance (X), one that PLAINLY limits itself to UNincorporated areas.  I argued the ticket was therefore invalid, since (1) the cited property is in an INcorporated city and (2) no City ordinance authorizes County to enforce the cited code within the City's limits.

Hearing Officer (HO) IGNORED those arguments.  He then focused on a different County law (Y).  But that law also limits itself to UNincorporated areas.  Based on a "Memo of Understanding" (between County Fire and County Land Services), the Hearing Officer ALTERED Y to make it "apply" to my City. 

He can't do that.  One, a "Memo of Understanding" between County agencies is NOT a recognized method of revision/amendment to city/county ordinances.  Second, the people who signed the MOU LACKED legislative power.  Third, nobody from my city signed the document.  Fourth, revisions or alterations to city/county ordinances must comply with very specific laws mentioned in my state's gov't code.  Neither the MOU nor his alteration complied with those laws.

What's also interesting is that he said he found "photographs" of the alleged violation "particularly compelling."  But he didn't say the MOU extended Law X to INcorporated properties, only that the MOU extended Law Y to INcorporated properties.  That means he found photos of an INcoporated-area property to be strong evidence of said property violating Law X, an ordinance that specifically limits itself to UNincorporated areas (As I said, that's NOT something he disputed). Ultimately, that means the evidence doesn't support the HO's decision to uphold the ticket for a violation of Law X.  (Incidentally, the MOU doesn't extend either law.  But that's a side issue).

More importantly, why have you refused to cut your lawn for 5 years?

rated:
He already said enough in the locked thread.
Here's a summary in case of TL;DR

1) OP doesn't mow lawn for 5 years.
2) OP gets notices for X number of years.
3) OP 'claims' that they will mow their lawn this year 'when it gets cold'.
4) OP then doesn't mow lawn on 'cold days'
5) City of SB issues some kind of court notice.
6) City mows lawn.
7) OP drives 50 miles to court case and they tell OP to 'pay up'
8) OP appeals.

Wow that is almost TL;DR range itself.

rated:
mapatsfan said:   More importantly, why have you refused to cut your lawn for 5 years?
It was too hot.    
  

rated:
mapatsfan said:   
More importantly, why have you refused to cut your lawn for 5 years?

  (1) I have NO lawn, as I'm not into that.
  (2) My yard had weeds (something County called "grasses")
  (3) Weed abatement is both boring and laborious.
  (4) Paying $150+ for something that gives me no value for my money is something I'd rather avoid.
  (5) I don't care how my yard looks.
(6) My house was built a long time ago.  Big weeds might get me a new one for free.

rated:
forbin4040 said:   He already said enough in the locked thread.
Here's a summary in case of TL;DR

1) OP doesn't mow lawn for 5 years.
2) OP gets notices for X number of years.
3) OP 'claims' that they will mow their lawn this year 'when it gets cold'.
4) OP then doesn't mow lawn on 'cold days'
5) City of SB issues some kind of court notice.
6) City mows lawn.
7) OP drives 50 miles to court case and they tell OP to 'pay up'
8) OP appeals.

Wow that is almost TL;DR range itself.

  (1) Y
  (2) Y
  (3) N.  (when it's NOT blistering hot. also, "weeds," NOT "lawn")
  (4) N.  (no "cold" days where I am during summer)
  (5) N. County of SB, NOT city
  (6) N. County of SB, NOT city
  (7) N. Did hearing by mail. (Also, hearing was NOT done in "court"  County assigned case to somebody who works for same company that County pays to process tickets.  That doesn't sound like a conflict of interest or anything).
  (8) N. Will be appealing to Superior Court (luckily, I get to pick one that's only a few miles from me.  That's mighty generous of County.  I feel sorry for Big Bear residents.  They have to file in Victorville. That's only a 1hr.+ drive).

rated:
weseka said:   
forbin4040 said:   He already said enough in the locked thread.
Here's a summary in case of TL;DR

1) OP doesn't mow lawn for 5 years.
2) OP gets notices for X number of years.
3) OP 'claims' that they will mow their lawn this year 'when it gets cold'.
4) OP then doesn't mow lawn on 'cold days'
5) City of SB issues some kind of court notice.
6) City mows lawn.
7) OP drives 50 miles to court case and they tell OP to 'pay up'
8) OP appeals.

Wow that is almost TL;DR range itself.

  (1) Y
  (2) Y
  (3) N.  (when it's NOT blistering hot. also, "weeds," NOT "lawn")
  (4) N.  (no "cold" days where I am during summer)
  (5) N. County of SB, NOT city
  (6) N. County of SB, NOT city
  (7) N. Did hearing by mail. (Also, hearing was NOT done in "court").
  (8) N. Will be appealing to Superior Court (luckily, I get to pick one that's only a few miles from me.  That's mighty generous of County.  I feel sorry for Big Bear residents.  They have to file in Victorville. That's only a 1hr.+ drive).

 How many of your close neighbors, proximity-wise, not friendship-wise, have the same problem? 

rated:
And that's how we got to this point. OP is pointing out the smallest minutia and sticking to his guns.

If this is was CN47, I can understand, it's all about getting $$$$, this however is about mowing some 'green things growning in the ground'

rated:
merep said:   
forbin4040 said:   He already said enough in the locked thread.
Here's a summary in case of TL;DR

1) OP doesn't mow lawn for 5 years.
2) OP gets notices for X number of years.
3) OP 'claims' that they will mow their lawn this year 'when it gets cold'.
4) OP then doesn't mow lawn on 'cold days'
5) City of SB issues some kind of court notice.
6) City mows lawn.
7) OP drives 50 miles to court case and they tell OP to 'pay up'
8) OP appeals.

Wow that is almost TL;DR range itself.

  (1) Y
  (2) Y
  (3) N.  (when it's NOT blistering hot)
  (4) N.  (no "cold" days where I am during summer)
  (5) N. County of SB, NOT city
  (6) N. County of SB, NOT city
  (7) N. Did hearing by mail. (Also, hearing was NOT done in "court").
  (8) N. Will be appealing to Superior Court (luckily, I get to pick one that's only a few miles from me.  That's mighty generous of County.  I feel sorry for Big Bear residents.  They have to file in Victorville. That's only a 1hr.+ drive).

1. that's for neighbors/suckers
2. appreciates the padding for landfill
3. that's also for neighbors/suckers
4. that's for people who don't make as many excuses
5. thinks of rainman talking about "wapner" and laughs
6. it's not just for neighbors/suckers anymore. it's also for the city
7. court is for law-abiding suckers
8. judge judy seems like she would understand. if not, there's always burning the place down/insurance fraud

rated:
mapatsfan said:   
How many of your close neighbors, proximity-wise, not friendship-wise, have the same problem? 

  I don't talk to my neighbors. So I have no idea.  I do know that, this year, County has issued tickets for the same issue to hundreds of residents of my city.

rated:
forbin4040 said:   And that's how we got to this point. OP is pointing out the smallest minutia and sticking to his guns.

If this is was CN47, I can understand, it's all about getting $$$$, this however is about mowing some 'green things growning in the ground'

  smallest minutia? I'd say it's a pretty big deal to have a property within an incorporated city and get a ticket for an alleged violation of an ordinance that PLAINLY limits itself to UNincorporated areas.

also, there wasn't anything "green."  my yard had "weeds."  they were brown.

I might get some $$$ out of this.  If i win my appeal, I'll sue County, claiming trespass, negligence and vandalism.

  • Quick Reply:  Have something quick to contribute? Just reply below and you're done! hide Quick Reply
     
    Click here for full-featured reply.


Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2017