Cantonagod

What the hell is POA?

SiR-Racer

ok after a quick glance i bring up this:

---------------------------
(4) The court shall, in considering whether or not an amendment should be made, consider,

(a) the evidence taken on the trial, if any;

(b) the circumstances of the case;

(c) whether the defendant has been misled or prejudiced in the defendant's defence by a variance, error or omission; and

(d) whether, having regard to the merits of the case, the proposed amendment can be made without injustice being done.
----------------------------

ok, now it can be argued that changing the charge on a ticket violates part (c) AND (d). This is an injustice. You cannot bring someone to trial on a particular charge and then change the charge on the spot via an ammendment. Having the wrong charge has also violated (C) in that it has misled the defendent's defence by a variance, error or omission. this of course being the incorrect charge. thanks for coming out.

SiR-Racer

you know TheREALRENZO, you made a good effort there. you really did. especially the part where you quote from the POA but manage to leave out the rest of that subsection (ie the part i posted). no wonder you didnt want to tell me what POA was

SiR-Racer

Provincial Offences Act

Cantonagod

Thank you.

TheRealBenzo

I didn't list the entire section because Judicial discretion is almost absolute within this context. Don't pretend to understand this concept because you clearly DO NOT.

Ten minutes ago you didn't know what the POA was and now you're listing it off to contradict a Justice of the peace?

Seriously, go to school bud, before you embarrass yourself.

Edit: Listen man, I've tried being tactful about this, but you can undersatnd why you might look like a jacka55 asking what the POA is and then quoting it just afterwards?

SiR-Racer

i see, so that is all you have left to say? All you have left is to attack my education now? haha, like i said, sometimes experience is more important than reading from the book. my experiences have taught me exactly what i was expecting to see in the POA. And dont you worry, i AM in school. And quite frankly you dont know jack about me so you are in no position to "judge" my educational background nor intellect.

My quotes from the POA firmly back my stance of the court not being able to change the charge on a ticket. Especially part (c), there's no denying that one. So i'm sorry but once again you are wrong. I know it's hard but you must swallow your pride once in awhile and admit it.

PS>> This is my last post in this thread directed to you THEREALBENZO. I have grown tired of attempting to reason with a wall.

TheRealBenzo

"sometimes experience is more important than reading from the book"

Experience? You JUST read it, JUST NOW. How can you say you have experience? When I say just now I mean bud, you didn't know it EXISTED an hour ago! And now you're experienced in certificate amendments?

I really hope you read this in a few days and realize how ridiculous you sound.
For now, I'm going to go read this month's 'superstreet' magazine so I can be a certified mechanic by the end of the night!

SiR-Racer

my god, you dont get it. i said i already knew what was coming in the POA because of my experience!! WAY TO GO! i in no way said was experienced with the POA. u're just flailing for answers now. Please stop. This is sad.

TheRealBenzo

Edit: For those who don't know, the Provincial Offenses Act plays a pivotal role in deciding this sort of stuff. It's the first step in forming an opinion on these types of issues. To consider an issue like 'amending tix' without first reading the POA is like starting a road trip without a map, you have no idea where you're going and little hope of reaching your desination.

" i said i already knew what was coming in the POA because of my experience!! "

Seriously? Are you serious here? You already knew what was coming from something you didnt know existed? Oh and how did you know this, you felt it? it came to you in a dream? Or did someone tell you about it? Nah, couldnt've been any of those because you didn't know it by name did you? I'm not flailing, I'm giving you answers from myself and repected peple in the legal community, you're running to grab pieces that you can use without actually reading the law and understanding it.

I wouldn't expect just anyone to know this stuff, but you've chosen to inflate your 'experience'. For someone with so much 'experience' you'd think you'd know something as basic as this? Maybe your experience is not as real as you'd like it to be?

SiR-Racer

did i not say way ahead of time that they cant change the charge in court?

TheRealBenzo

"did i not say way ahead of time that they cant change the charge in court? "

What? What are you talking about? Of course they can! This has been the whole point of our discussion. What did you think judcial amendments to certificates was? They're amendments made IN COURT. So I mean, if you DID say that, well bud, you'd be wrong.

SiR-Racer

ok i guess my last 10 posts have gone for nothing. what do you think i quoted that subsection of the POA for? changing the charge DIRECTLY violates part (c). damn, u dont even bother reading my posts. i totally give up.

this is definitely my last post. ok you win alright? everything you say is 100% correct. Now stop this nonsense.

TheRealBenzo

You're using information that you JUST read. Based on the way you used it, I know you you didn't really understand what you read.
And, do I have to point out that you're argueing with me, but using 'my' information as a crutch for your arguements? Do you have any idea how irresponsible that is and how quickly you'd be done if this was a courtroom setting?

Saying you know the truth when you don't is dry, and don't say you know from experience because you don't man, you just don't.
This fact is painfully clear, just re-read your own words!

edit: Nonsense is claiming to be an expert without actually ever knowing the rules. Stupidity is pushing on when you know you're busted on it.

SiR-Racer

let me just set things straight before you take it the wrong way. all i'm saying is that there is no way you will ever go to court with a speeding ticket and come out being fined for something like improper exhaust.

now if it is a minor change, such as the officer put down 15 over but his radar readings really show 25 over then the judge my CONSIDER ammending it. but the charge effectively stays the same, speeding is speeding. before you get your panties all tied up in a knot, i'm not saying that all changes are not possible. in fact, a lot of this is up to the judges discretion meaning he can do almost anything he wishes. BUT, and this is a big BUT, this is not the point. if this were the point, what's the point of this forum? why bother getting people's advice? the judge has the power to do what he sees fit. it's up to you to point out laws that prevent you from being screwed up the ***. the judge can listen to you or totally ignore you. you cant help that. what you can do is appeal the verdict if you think you were given an unfair trial. but lets assume judges are RELATIVELY fair and unbiased.

lets say you show up in court with a speeding ticket and the cop suddenly wants to charge you for improper lighting instead of the charge on the ticket. all u have to do is point out part (c) of the POA to the judge. 99.9% of the time the judge will side with you unless he's some kind of corrupt @ss.

all i'm saying is that the law exists such that an ammendment cannot be made that misleads your defence. lets leave it at that. can we agree and end this now???

the whole point of this discussion in the first place (which seems totally forgotten) is that someone wanted to know if blue constant lights were legal. the answer is yes as long as it is not your headlight or license plate light since the HTA specifically restricts the use of lighting in these applications.

then someone brought up the fact that they have a ticket that says "illegal flashing blue light. HTA 62(32)". now this peron's light does not even flash. he will get off for sure unless the judge is out to screw him bad and does not abide by any of the laws.

TheRealBenzo

I disagree with your accessment, but I like your tenacity so I guess we'll agree to disagree until one of us gets nailed with one of these.

AzimuthX: Sorry man, I guess you just have to read over all this and decide for yourself?

SiR-Racer: I can see you're a 'last word' freak so I'll let you have this one. j/k

"this is definitely my last post."

"This is my last post in this thread directed to you THEREALBENZO"

SiR-Racer

lol...i know i know, i cant resist. but you gotta admit, u're always there right after me too

well it's been interesting to say the least. honestly maybe we've been arguing about the wrong thing. i mean law is not exactly black and white. it's pretty much grey and up to whoever to interpret it. i mean i'm sure one judge will do things his way and another will do it differently.

SiR-Racer

i guess there is no right or wrong about interpreting law since it's up to the judge anyway. you could have one defence in one court and be found innocent while you do the exact same thing and another judge will find you guilty. i mean, i guess the bottom line is when u go to court it's a coin toss. all u can do is read as much as you can about the laws and hope you can persuade the judge to see it your way and find you innocent. anything could happen. look at O.J. for instance

ok, i guess this ends here then. u may have a last word if you wish, i wont hold it against u

PULOVR

Ding.....end of round one....:working:

SiR-Racer

Round two anyone?