I need a lawyer, recommendations please.

[Madness]

Well, it's been quite a few years since I lined the pockets of anyone in the Legal profession. I'm in a different city now too, that doesn't help me much.

I'm expecting a Summons for a Dangerous Driving charge. It's a crock of shite and I intend to defend the charge to the best of my financial ability. Another KBer has been charged with the same fictional offence. We wrote a letter, but it was met with the standard proforma reply stating "we are going to arsefuck you, Kind regards, The Fuzz".

I'm not posting this here for the KB Kangaroo Court to hear my case. I simply ask that if anyone can reccomend a good traffic Lawyer (that is also affordable :crazy:) in Auckland/Norf Shore, kindly share this information.

I don't fancy the idea of catching the bus for 6 months because of something I didn't do. :sweatdrop

[The Stranger]

Will PM you details, but post this for others also.
When I was faced with Dangerous I rang several lawyers around Auckland and they gave me prices between 5-7k for a defended hearing.
A KBer put me onto a lawyer who has represented a few other KBers and obtained satisfactory results. He did the same for me. Cost was less than half the 5k figure.

Now's a good time to have an open mind about boy racers. He drives a tricked up turbo Nissan Silvia, so he kind of has an idea of where we are coming from.

[Winston001]

You need someone experienced and comfortable in court.

Ringing lawyers might get you someone you'll have confidence in but personal recommendations are best. Shouldn't be hard to find someone. Best of luck.

[Fatjim]

just out of interest, does the cop think you did it, or is he making up stories.

[Madness]

just out of interest, does the cop think you did it, or is he making up stories.

Lets just say that I was in the place at the time, on the wrong motorcycle.

[Fatjim]

Lying cops piss me off, always have. Unfortunately you're unlikely to get anywhere as Judges almost always unconditionally believe cops in traffic cases.

[hospitalfood]

i have had great advice from people here about how to deal with the law, following advice led to being let off a $510.00 speeding ticket with no legal bills.

[The Pastor]

Lying cops piss me off, always have. Unfortunately you're unlikely to get anywhere as Judges almost always unconditionally believe cops in traffic cases.
thats not true at all, I find that the judges dislike traffic cops somthing cronic. They see alot of the cop bullshit and know even if the cop made it all up the defendant still has to pay. If you can prove the cop lied, and / or lied under oath you'll find you've got yourself an automatic win.

Noel, care to post up the contact for everyone to share?

[Fatjim]

RM, you contradict me, then yourself. Please edit so it makes sense.

[Fatjim]

i have had great advice from people here about how to deal with the law, following advice led to being let off a $510.00 speeding ticket with no legal bills.

You mean the old "I'm about to apply for the poliice force and the convition would stop me" one?

[DEATH_INC.]

Mmmm, I'll fess up, I'm the other one charged with the same offense.....but before you all say it, no I didn't commit said offense either. If the bastards get me/us it'll be the second time to loose my license to some lying arsehole cop.:buggerd:
I want blood,:mad: but first I/We gotta get off this....:calm:

[klingon]

Lets just say that I was in the place at the time, on the wrong motorcycle.

Not very long ago I would have been sceptical of this claim. I would have thought (silently, without sharing the thought) "he probably did something but he just thinks it's not as bad as the charge he's got."

Unfortunately one of my nearest and dearest has recently been accused of all sorts of nonsense by a policeman who evidently got every single aspect wrong.

I won't go into details here, but we were travelling in a group, I was riding pillion, and we did absolutely nothing even resembling the charges that have been alleged. I know this because I was there. If anyone else in the group did something wrong, they didn't do it anywhere near us.

But the person concerned has recently discovered that he has been convicted of an offense, without ever having been told that he was charged! Apparently they couldn't find him (he's in the phone book for goodness sake, and has worked at the same place for the last 12 years, with his name on their website!) so they convicted him in his absence.

This is one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen from the police.

[The Stranger]

Mmmm, I'll fess up, I'm the other one charged with the same offense.....but before you all say it, no I didn't commit said offense either. If the bastards get me/us it'll be the second time to loose my license to some lying arsehole cop.:buggerd:
I want blood,:mad: but first I/We gotta get off this....:calm:

What happened?

[SixPackBack]

Not very long ago I would have been sceptical of this claim. I would have thought (silently, without sharing the thought) "he probably did something but he just thinks it's not as bad as the charge he's got."

Unfortunately one of my nearest and dearest has recently been accused of all sorts of nonsense by a policeman who evidently got every single aspect wrong.

I won't go into details here, but we were travelling in a group, I was riding pillion, and we did absolutely nothing even resembling the charges that have been alleged. I know this because I was there. If anyone else in the group did something wrong, they didn't do it anywhere near us.

But the person concerned has recently discovered that he has been convicted of an offense, without ever having been told that he was charged! Apparently they couldn't find him (he's in the phone book for goodness sake, and has worked at the same place for the last 12 years, with his name on their website!) so they convicted him in his absence.

This is one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen from the police.


Are you fishing??............almost exactly the same set of circumstances surround a charge leveled against me that can only be described as a blatant lie.

[klingon]

Are you fishing??............almost exactly the same set of circumstances surround a charge leveled against me that can only be described as a blatant lie.

Very interesting. <_< I will ask the person concerned whether I can share some of the details of the case with you and see how far the parallels go. He is still in the process of trying to get info from the courts about what has happened.

When he found out about the conviction (because a debt collector contacted him about an "overdue fine") he applied to the court for a re-hearing. They said he cannot get a re-hearing because of the amount of time that has passed since the conviction that he didn't know about. It really is an incredibly frustrating situation.

[SixPackBack]

Very interesting. <_< I will ask the person concerned whether I can share some of the details of the case with you and see how far the parallels go. He is still in the process of trying to get info from the courts about what has happened.

When he found out about the conviction (because a debt collector contacted him about an "overdue fine") he applied to the court for a re-hearing. They said he cannot get a re-hearing because of the amount of time that has passed since the conviction that he didn't know about. It really is an incredibly frustrating situation.

Standard modus operandi convicting in absentia is a win-win situation for the Police. They kinda need a helping hand as neither the police nor the courts could organise a hand job at flora's.

Think I'm bitter?..........consider why a middle aged 'clean skin' with a previous solid respect for the police and courts considers them in pretty much the same fashion as organised gangs. Do not trust them.

[Madness]

But the person concerned has recently discovered that he has been convicted of an offense, without ever having been told that he was charged!



I'd of thought that a Court could only impose a Conviction in the Defendant's absence when there is evidence of a Summons being served; i.e hand-delivered.

You sure it's not just an Infringement that your friend has learnt of?.

[klingon]

I'd of thought that a Court could only impose a Conviction in the Defendant's absence when there is evidence of a Summons being served; i.e hand-delivered.

You sure it's not just an Infringement that your friend has learnt of?.

Unfortunately it's more serious than just speeding or whatever. I probably shouldn't have even started discussing it on here, because he's a member and hasn't discussed it here himself. I don't want to be the blabbermouth. :o

On the other hand, in some ways experiences like this need to be blabbed about because then you find out how many other sensible, law-abiding, innocent people are being falsely accused and denied due process!

[Skyryder]

Very interesting. <_< I will ask the person concerned whether I can share some of the details of the case with you and see how far the parallels go. He is still in the process of trying to get info from the courts about what has happened.

When he found out about the conviction (because a debt collector contacted him about an "overdue fine") he applied to the court for a re-hearing. They said he cannot get a re-hearing because of the amount of time that has passed since the conviction that he didn't know about. It really is an incredibly frustrating situation.


Many many years back I received a notice from the court that I had been fined for a speeding ticket. To cut a long story short due to a change in adresses I never recieved a 'summons' telling me of the date of the hearing so i could defend the charge.

Bottomline to this is that the fine was cancelled due to my not being informed of the court date so i could defend the charge.

Now I don't know if this is still valid today I know you have twenty eight days I think to notify if you want to defend the charge but if you do and do not receive notification of a date then you may have grounds to have the fine waved.

Skyryder

[SixPackBack]

Along with police/court corruption and incompetence, finding a lawyer who is going to see you as anything other than a cash cow and push whatever advice best suits their back pocket is next to impossible.

[Madness]

Along with police/court corruption and incompetence, finding a lawyer who is going to see you as anything other than a cash cow and push whatever advice best suits their back pocket is next to impossible.



Right... I'm off to Foodtown to buy some lube.

[Max Preload]

When he found out about the conviction (because a debt collector contacted him about an "overdue fine") he applied to the court for a re-hearing. They said he cannot get a re-hearing because of the amount of time that has passed since the conviction that he didn't know about. It really is an incredibly frustrating situation.

Did he receive the advice that the rehearing would not be granted in writing and the reason stated therein, because I see no such time limit provisions for the granting of rehearings. Rehearings can be granted by a District Court Judge or Justice or Registrar or Community Magistrate.

[MaxB]

Unfortunately it's more serious than just speeding or whatever. I probably shouldn't have even started discussing it on here, because he's a member and hasn't discussed it here himself. I don't want to be the blabbermouth. :o

On the other hand, in some ways experiences like this need to be blabbed about because then you find out how many other sensible, law-abiding, innocent people are being falsely accused and denied due process!

Your friend (and Madness) need the services of a lawyer you can trust. Easier said than done but they are out there.

[Madness]

So far we have had the name of one Lawyer PM'd for consideration. For this I am very thankful, although somewhat dissappointed at the lack of names being put forward.

Can anyone else assist with reccomending a good Traffic Lawyer in Orchland?.

No offense to The Stranger, I'd love to have some options is all.

[Winston001]

Your friend (and Madness) need the services of a lawyer you can trust. Easier said than done bah blah.....

What absolute bollocks. The one thing - indeed the fundamental thing a lawyer gives is trust. If that wasn't true no lawyer would ever have a client.


What you really mean by trust is someone who will accept everything you say, only tell you what you want to hear, pretend the law is wrong - and charge you $50 for 6 months work. :Tui:

[SixPackBack]

What absolute bollocks. The one thing - indeed the fundamental thing a lawyer gives is trust. If that wasn't true no lawyer would ever have a client.


What you really mean by trust is someone who will accept everything you say, only tell you what you want to hear, pretend the law is wrong - and charge you $50 for 6 months work. :Tui:

Lawyers are masters at manipulating clients [through ignorance] into either defending the indefensible or taking clients on another road of action that requires the maximum expenditure, guilt or innocence are a side show to cash creation!

Anyone who believes the vast majority of lawyers are motivated by anything other than money is naive in the extreme or very foolish indeed.

[vifferman]

Can anyone else assist with reccomending a good Traffic Lawyer in Orchland?.
What about that annoying bint on the radio, who's always advertising lawyering for people who are up for loss of licence due to drink-drive, speeding etc.? (Sorry - can't remember her name; I always switch off mentally when she starts rabbiting on, as her voice is so annoying... wait.... the annoying ads must've worked: (removed by request). She's on teh Interdweeb.)

[HenryDorsetCase]

Anyone who believes the vast majority of lawyers are motivated by anything other than money is naive in the extreme or very foolish indeed.

Twat.

Yes I am a lawyer. Yes I am motivated by money. I am running a BUSINESS here. I need to be in a position to pay Uncle Helen (sorry, Uncle Johnny) pay my staff, pay my landlord, pay all my creditors and then finally, maybe, just maybe, pay myself at the end of the month.

So to that extent you are absolutely fucking right I am motivated by money.

Note: I dont do court work, so have no axe to grind there.

Having said that, clients come to us looking for an outcome or a result: we assess what is achievable for that client, then ask the question: "How will you pay?". What we are selling, basically, is our knowledge, and that ability to achieve YOUR result.

If you want something outlandish, impossible, or even fiendishly improbable, we will try and achieve it for you (within reason and our ROPC) but to blame the lawyer for trying to do what the client wants is fucking naive at best, and "so stupid you should go get a licence to walk and chew gum at the same time" at worst.

Pull your head in.

[The Stranger]

What absolute bollocks. The one thing - indeed the fundamental thing a lawyer gives is trust. If that wasn't true no lawyer would ever have a client.


What you really mean by trust is someone who will accept everything you say, only tell you what you want to hear, pretend the law is wrong - and charge you $50 for 6 months work. :Tui:

My experience with lawyers - and that is way too much thanks to commercial construction disputes mostly.

Instruct them!
Listen to their input, treat them as advisors, but if you go there hoping they have all the answers be prepared for a huge disapointment and a large bill.

Work out the angles yourself!
Again, listen to their advice, consider their advice, but make your own decisions. They will advise if you are barking up the wrong tree.

Do the leg work yourself - if you don't, it wont get done.
With my dangerous charge I went up and took photos, measured distances measured the widths of the bridges and gave the lawyer a full brief of the entire trip. With my house case, I researched similar cases, got onto an english professor to provide clarification, confirmed construction costs got a valuer to measure and value the house. I had worked out their case and the other guys case and all the angles and replies to these before even approaching the lawyer.

Why? Pure and simple - it's your arse and it's your money. They don't go home at nights stressing about you or your money, they got other shit on their minds.

As noted they tend to give trust. But alas this is an illusion. I can't recall anyone ever saying their lawyer (or accountant for that matter) is useless - until after they loose the case and/or their money then they get all bitter and twisted. But the signs were there from the start. Open your eyes.

One key determining factor for me - can they keep up with me and my thinking? If not - I don't want to know them.

[SixPackBack]

Twat.

Fantastic rebuttal, hope you show your customers a little more respect.

Yes I am a lawyer. Yes I am motivated by money. I am running a BUSINESS here. I need to be in a position to pay Uncle Helen (sorry, Uncle Johnny) pay my staff, pay my landlord, pay all my creditors and then finally, maybe, just maybe, pay myself at the end of the month.

My heart bleeds custard, especially with Lawyers receiving the minimum wage an all!

So to that extent you are absolutely fucking right I am motivated by money.

Your a Lawyer tell us something we don't know.

Note: I dont do court work, so have no axe to grind there.

Having said that, clients come to us looking for an outcome or a result: we assess what is achievable for that client, then ask the question: "How will you pay?". What we are selling, basically, is our knowledge, and that ability to achieve YOUR result.

As previously stated many lawyers look for a way to achieve the desired outcome while fleecing the maximum amount of cash.

If you want something outlandish, impossible, or even fiendishly improbable, we will try and achieve it for you (within reason and our ROPC) but to blame the lawyer for trying to do what the client wants is fucking naive at best, and "so stupid you should go get a licence to walk and chew gum at the same time" at worst.

Pull your head in.


As a professional Lawyer I would have thought a constructive argument would have been free from abuse and snide remarks.......speaks volumes about you-your services will not be needed!

Perhaps you should at some stage be invloved in purchasing the services of a lawyer specialising in trafic and see how satisfied you are with the result.

[Madness]

What about that annoying bint on the radio, who's always advertising lawyering for people who are up for loss of licence due to drink-drive, speeding etc.? (Sorry - can't remember her name; I always switch off mentally when she starts rabbiting on, as her voice is so annoying... wait.... the annoying ads must've worked: (removed by request). She's on teh Interdweeb.)

Yeah, I listen to The Rock also. She doesn't really instil me with confidence in that 30 second whine I'm afraid. Currently she has about an inch and a half up on a no-namer in the Yellow Pages.

Cheers for the thought though.

And thanks for the PM's guys, have two real possibilities now - keep em comin'!

[MaxB]

What absolute bollocks. The one thing - indeed the fundamental thing a lawyer gives is trust. If that wasn't true no lawyer would ever have a client.

First I was referring to the particular situation of trying to find a good traffic lawyer in Auckland to help them with their cases. Reason: a complex case can drag on and you will be spending a lot of time and money with them. You have to 'feel' you can trust them from a professional relationship POV. All lawyers are trustworthy eg honest by the training and oaths taken to practice law.

Have you tried to get legal help in Auckland for defended traffic hearings? There is a huge backlog of cases and the experienced traffic lawyers are booked up for months in advance. Some of the rap lawyers get up here is when inexperienced legal teams are engaged in complex cases because there is simply no one else left to do it.



What you really mean by trust is someone who will accept everything you say, only tell you what you want to hear, pretend the law is wrong - and charge you $50 for 6 months work. :Tui:

Err... you cannot presume to tell me what I really meant. Unless you have fixed your telepathy helmet and Tardis. I will happily pay $2000/hour for good legal advice. Sometimes that advice has been to drop proceedings and walk away. I generally listen.

[Swoop]

What about that annoying bint on the radio, who's always advertising lawyering for people who are up for loss of licence due to drink-drive, speeding etc.? (Sorry - can't remember her name; I always switch off mentally when she starts rabbiting on, as her voice is so annoying... wait.... the annoying ads must've worked: (removed by request). She's on teh Interdweeb.)

(Name removed by request)

[Max Preload]

(Name removed by request)

Is there an echo echo echo echo echo in here?

[Madness]

I have visions of the Big Save crazywoman every time I hear her ad.

[Max Preload]

I have visions of the Big Save crazywoman every time I hear her ad.

In that case, arrange a meeting and take a knife. :niceone:

[The Stranger]

All lawyers are trustworthy eg honest by the training and oaths taken to practice law.



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
Riiight, sure.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Err... you cannot presume to tell me what I really meant. Unless you have fixed your telepathy helmet and Tardis. I will happily pay $2000/hour for good legal advice. Sometimes that advice has been to drop proceedings and walk away. I generally listen.

I'd do it for $1500/hr. Just saying.

[HenryDorsetCase]

As a professional Lawyer I would have thought a constructive argument would have been free from abuse and snide remarks.......speaks volumes about you-your services will not be needed!

Perhaps you should at some stage be invloved in purchasing the services of a lawyer specialising in trafic and see how satisfied you are with the result.

Whatever: If i think you are being a twat I say "I think you are being a twat": and in this instance "I think you're being a twat": Are we clear now?

I live in another centre, I know very good traffic lawyers (and I employ one as it happens), I think I should be OK. For anything major (injury accident/running from the Pleece/discharging firearms at idiots on the internets) I know people. Good people.

I think I'm covered, but thanks for your concern.

[DEATH_INC.]

A few years back I had an accident that I got blamed for (how they worked that out when the idiot pulled across the road in front of me I'll never know), got a lawyer and had it dropped without ever going to court......BUT it still cost me $3000 for the lawyer and repairs to a very damaged bike (it took over 6 months so the tosser was safe....).
This is the bit that REALLY pisses me off, why the fuck should I have to pay for a lawyer to defend against a crime I didn't do, and obviously they don't know who did ????? Can they really just make shit up and get off scott free????

[The Pastor]

as a professional lawyer i would have thought a constructive argument would have been free from abuse and snide remarks.......speaks volumes about you-your services will not be needed!

perhaps you should at some stage be invloved in purchasing the services of a lawyer specialising in trafic and see how satisfied you are with the result.
i know i would want to hire a lawer as fine as hdc after that replay. Oh wait i lied. I must be a lawyer.

[The Pastor]

a few years back i had an accident that i got blamed for (how they worked that out when the idiot pulled across the road in front of me i'll never know), got a lawyer and had it dropped without ever going to court......but it still cost me $3000 for the lawyer and repairs to a very damaged bike (it took over 6 months so the tosser was safe....).
This is the bit that really pisses me off, why the fuck should i have to pay for a lawyer to defend against a crime i didn't do, and obviously they don't know who did ????? Can they really just make shit up and get off scott free????
the only person who wins at court are laywers, cops and judges/court staff.

Im only guessing if you could of done this but i would of taken the cop who charged you or the guy who crashed into you to court for the fees (+ the fees and loss of income required to get the fees...).

[vifferman]

I'm wondering if shooting the star witness in this case will help?:devil2:
Not now that you've (allegedly) asked that question in front of witnesses.

[Madness]

I'm wondering if shooting the star witness in this case will help?:devil2:

That would be super.

[DEATH_INC.]

Not now that you've (allegedly) asked that question in front of witnesses.
SSSHHHH, that's my defense!

[SixPackBack]

Whatever: If i think you are being a twat I say "I think you are being a twat": and in this instance "I think you're being a twat": Are we clear now?

I live in another centre, I know very good traffic lawyers (and I employ one as it happens), I think I should be OK. For anything major (injury accident/running from the Pleece/discharging firearms at idiots on the internets) I know people. Good people.

I think I'm covered, but thanks for your concern.

Hahaha.....your attitude and reply speaks [figuratively] heaps about Lawyers per se. ............the only one replying to this thread is abusive, uncommunicative, incapable of constructing the simplest of rebuttals and delusion enough to believe I would give a flying fuck about his well being:bash:

[SixPackBack]

the only person who wins at court are laywers, cops and judges/court staff.

Im only guessing if you could of done this but i would of taken the cop who charged you or the guy who crashed into you to court for the fees (+ the fees and loss of income required to get the fees...).

Spot on. For the best part minor crimes are nothing more than a cash cow for the government and job creation for blood suckers.

[Phurrball]

SPB -

It's all in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (SR 2008/214)
(http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2008/0214/latest/DLM1437811.html?search=ts_regulation_rules+of+clie nt+care+and+conduct_resel)

Read them.

I think our learned friend here is getting a little excercised by the all-too-common misconceptions borne of ignorance - which you are perpetuating.

Lawyers are not allowed to act in the ways you are asserting in this thread. It is a very regulated profession, and if you ever have an issue with a lawyer's services - talk to the local District Law Society.

Ross

Edit: I think the Stranger offers good advice WRT gathering as much information as possible to help ensure the best outcome.

[The Pastor]

I'm wondering if shooting the star witness in this case will help?:devil2:
oh it always does.

[Sparrowhawk]

Madness, best of luck with it all. I've always found it helpful to be friends with a couple of cops (i know, sounds like sleeping with the enemy). Then if you get something like this happen, you have a chat to them, they have a chat to the officer involved, and if it's bullshit, it dissappears! At least, that's my theory...

[DEATH_INC.]

OK, enough BS, I'm guessing we need to talk to someone who can give us some legal advice right now, we need to know where we stand. Cheers for the suggestions coming in so far.

[SixPackBack]

SPB -

It's all in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (SR 2008/214)
(http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2008/0214/latest/DLM1437811.html?search=ts_regulation_rules+of+clie nt+care+and+conduct_resel)

Read them.

I think our learned friend here is getting a little excercised by the all-too-common misconceptions borne of ignorance - which you are perpetuating.

Lawyers are not allowed to act in the ways you are asserting in this thread. It is a very regulated profession, and if you ever have an issue with a lawyer's services - talk to the local District Law Society.

Ross

Edit: I think the Stranger offers good advice WRT gathering as much information as possible to help ensure the best outcome.

Fuck me what colour is the sky in your world.

[Winston001]

What about that annoying bint on the radio, who's always advertising lawyering for people who are up for loss of licence due to drink-drive, speeding etc.? (Sorry - can't remember her name; I always switch off mentally when she starts rabbiting on, as her voice is so annoying... wait.... the annoying ads must've worked...........

Call me cynical but my observation is that the few lawyers who advertise like this have inflated opinions of themselves. Effective lawyers don't advertise - they don't need to.

As for the situation in Auckland, I'm told that case work is dropping off because of the recession. So it should be possible to find a lawyer you are comfortable with. The more information, the more detail you can provide, the better your case.

Traffic cases do not require a senior barrister - just someone who enjoys court-work and has experience. Word of mouth personal recommendation is still by far the best way to find the right lawyer. Hopefully you'l get that here.

[The Stranger]

Lawyers are not allowed to act in the ways you are asserting in this thread. It is a very regulated profession, and if you ever have an issue with a lawyer's services - talk to the local District Law Society.


Yes, most of the professional bodies are there to protect their own, not you - as they would have you believe.
Car dealers judge car dealers, doctors judge doctors etc etc.
All tend to abide conveniently by the principal of let he who is without sin cast the first stone - hence very few stones ever get cast, and when they do, they usually appear to be tiny pebbles.

[Hinny]

I'm expecting a Summons for a Dangerous Driving charge.
It's a crock of shite


Have you been interacting with the ATNR nemesis?

[HenryDorsetCase]

Hahaha.....your attitude and reply speaks [figuratively] heaps about Lawyers per se. ............the only one replying to this thread is abusive, uncommunicative, incapable of constructing the simplest of rebuttals and delusion enough to believe I would give a flying fuck about his well being:bash:

I can, I could, I just didnt.

My responses speak a lot more, I think, about how I think about people who really have no idea about what they are talking about, and who try to reduce everything to their level. Sadly, I got sucked into it and .... No more.

[SixPackBack]

I can, I could, I just didnt.

My responses speak a lot more, I think, about how I think about people who really have no idea about what they are talking about, and who try to reduce everything to their level. Sadly, I got sucked into it and .... No more.

I only hope your a little more motivated to provide some form of defensive action for you clients.

[Winston001]

First I was referring to the particular situation of trying to find a good traffic lawyer in Auckland to help them with their cases. Reason: a complex case can drag on and you will be spending a lot of time and money with them. You have to 'feel' you can trust them from a professional relationship POV. All lawyers are trustworthy eg honest by the training and oaths taken to practice law.

Have you tried to get legal help in Auckland for defended traffic hearings? There is a huge backlog of cases and the experienced traffic lawyers are booked up for months in advance. Some of the rap lawyers get up here is when inexperienced legal teams are engaged in complex cases because there is simply no one else left to do it.



Err... you cannot presume to tell me what I really meant. Unless you have fixed your telepathy helmet and Tardis. I will happily pay $2000/hour for good legal advice. Sometimes that advice has been to drop proceedings and walk away. I generally listen.

Fair enough and I apologise. In hindsight I was reacting to other posts and yours just happened to be the most recent.

Mental note to self: deep breaths, calmmm.......:sweatdrop

[Patrick]

Well, it's been quite a few years since I lined the pockets of anyone in the Legal profession. I'm in a different city now too, that doesn't help me much.

I'm expecting a Summons for a Dangerous Driving charge. It's a crock of shite and I intend to defend the charge to the best of my financial ability. Another KBer has been charged with the same fictional offence. We wrote a letter, but it was met with the standard proforma reply stating "we are going to arsefuck you, Kind regards, The Fuzz".

I'm not posting this here for the KB Kangaroo Court to hear my case. I simply ask that if anyone can reccomend a good traffic Lawyer (that is also affordable :crazy:) in Auckland/Norf Shore, kindly share this information.

I don't fancy the idea of catching the bus for 6 months because of something I didn't do. :sweatdrop


Lets just say that I was in the place at the time, on the wrong motorcycle.

"lets just say..."

Uh huh.... Did something then.... At a guess, refused to discuss with the cop involved, so he went with what he was told... Just not enough detail to give advice here..... Know a little about stuff like this so feel free to PM for a chat, for free of course....


Mmmm, I'll fess up, I'm the other one charged with the same offense.....but before you all say it, no I didn't commit said offense either. If the bastards get me/us it'll be the second time to loose my license to some lying arsehole cop.:buggerd:
I want blood,:mad: but first I/We gotta get off this....:calm:

As above.... wonder what the cop has in fact been told....

Lying? Hmmmm... "lets just say..."


Unfortunately it's more serious than just speeding or whatever. I probably shouldn't have even started discussing it on here, because he's a member and hasn't discussed it here himself. I don't want to be the blabbermouth. :o

On the other hand, in some ways experiences like this need to be blabbed about because then you find out how many other sensible, law-abiding, innocent people are being falsely accused and denied due process!

Can only be talking about Careless Use. Anything else higher than that carries mandatory disqualification and imprisonment options. If they can't be located/fail to appear for a fines only matter, they are dealt with in your absence. Otherwise, more serious matters which carry penalties of disqualification/imprisonment, a warrant is issued for your arrest.


As a professional Lawyer I would have thought a constructive argument would have been free from abuse and snide remarks.......speaks volumes about you-your services will not be needed!

Perhaps you should at some stage be invloved in purchasing the services of a lawyer specialising in trafic and see how satisfied you are with the result.

Geez SPB - you challenge the integrity of ALL lawyers, and he responds? You didn't see that coming?

This rings a bell..... kinda like an ALL cops are arseholes/anti cop thread, but its an anti lawyer one for a change... Oh hang on... it is an anti cop one... I think...


the only person who wins at court are laywers, cops and judges/court staff.

Of course it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999 percent of those who appear in court are as guilty as sin to start with?

[The Stranger]

I only hope your a little more motivated to provide some form of defensive action for you clients.



Woz working late at a client site last night, a legal practise.
Hanging on the wall is a sketch of 2 farmers looking frustrated, arguing over a cow and a lawyer on a stool milking the cow.

Pretty much sums it up really.

[The Stranger]

Lying? Hmmmm... "lets just say..."



Not 100% sure what you are trying to say there Patrick, but if it is what I think it is then you really don't know Death and do your credibility no favours.

[Scouse]

Try Barry Hart he got someone that I know off a DIC charge with a technicality even though this person both blew over the limit on the evidential breath test machine, and also provided a blood test that proved him to be over the limit. Hart is tactically very shrewd and he does do Traffic and if you have been set up or mis identified Hart will flesh this out and make the Cop look rather lame in court.

[Madness]

Try Barry Hart

He wouldn't be considered affordable though, I'd have thought.

[Patrick]

Not 100% sure what you are trying to say there Patrick, but if it is what I think it is then you really don't know Death and do your credibility no favours.

It was a poor way of saying "being economical" with the information. My bad. I think you are wrong in what you think......


He wouldn't be considered affordable though, I'd have thought.

See the PM....

[HenryDorsetCase]

He wouldn't be considered affordable though, I'd have thought.

ring him and ask! (Note he is a barrister sole, you will need an instructing solicitor). Being a silk, he is sure to be entirely reasonably priced.

I'd like a copy of that cartoon referred to above, for our reception area.

[Dave Lobster]

99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999 percent of those who appear in court are as guilty as sin to start with?

Yet still the judge gives them bail to reoffend..

[Patrick]

Yet still the judge gives them bail to reoffend..

Sigh.... So true.... What can ya do? Keeps us gainfully employed though... doing bail checks and chasing up on the crime spree he/she commits while on bail:doh:

[HenryDorsetCase]

Yet still the judge gives them bail to reoffend..

dont blame the judges for that, blame your politicians. Who makes the laws that REQUIRE a Judge, except in quite circumscribed circumstance, to issue bail. And who elects politicians? oh yeah, we do. Blaming Judges for having to play by the rules of the game (to adopt a sports analogy) is as retarded as blaming a rugby referee if your head gets stomped at the bottom of a ruck. or maul.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Sigh.... So true.... What can ya do? Keeps us gainfully employed though... doing bail checks and chasing up on the crime spree he/she commits while on bail:doh:

hopefully only crimes against property and only so they can afford their lawyers.

[Scouse]

He charged $5,000 for that case although that was about eight years ago.

[Patrick]

dont blame the judges for that, blame your politicians. Who makes the laws that REQUIRE a Judge, except in quite circumscribed circumstance, to issue bail. And who elects politicians? oh yeah, we do. Blaming Judges for having to play by the rules of the game (to adopt a sports analogy) is as retarded as blaming a rugby referee if your head gets stomped at the bottom of a ruck. or maul.


hopefully only crimes against property and only so they can afford their lawyers.

Fair call... but why then are some judges "harder" than others...? Absolutely right about having to play the rules.....

Some of the 5 gang banger murderers here are seeking ebail. (Electronic monitoring). What a joke.

[Beemer]

A mate's partner has just been done for dangerous driving - narrow windy wet road, oncoming truck around blind corner partially in his lane, he braked, skidded his 4WD into truck. Cop arrived, seemed to believe truck driver's claim he was entirely within his own lane and didn't really do much investigation. Friend was in vehicle when it happened, together with son and two large dogs, and got injured as their vehicle was quite badly damaged.

They felt strongly they were in the right so hired an independent accident investigator, who gathered all the evidence, spoke to cops, etc and discovered from the measurements that the truck could not have been in its own lane. He presented this evidence at court and by the sound of it even the cops agreed with him - but they still lost and are now looking at an appeal. Cost them about $4000 so far but he doesn't want a dangerous driving charge hanging over him. They live somewhere with no public transport so losing his licence would mean no job for him.

I never thought I'd be in court defending a traffic charge but I got done with going through a red light years ago - I admitted I'd gone through an orange light as it changed when I was about 20 feet away. I didn't think I had time to stop and as the guy behind me ended up 10 feet into the intersection after he saw the cop car in the side street and braked, I reckon I was right. At court the cops tried to remove the charge of going through a red light and replace it with going through an orange light and were told no, they had proved their case - but the JP hearing the case then halved my fine! I still wasn't happy and must confess I have hated traffic police ever since!

[vgcspares]

whatever you do don't plead guilty to a dangerous charge as it's considered a criminal offense, not just your crappy old driving offense shit

[HenryDorsetCase]

maybe see if this guy is available?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wJuXIq7OazQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wJuXIq7OazQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Madness]

Actually, that makes me think I should save some $$ and defend myself. I've started doing some law research...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TJv-rPfi504&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TJv-rPfi504&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[SixPackBack]

Geez SPB - you challenge the integrity of ALL lawyers, and he responds? You didn't see that coming?

This rings a bell..... kinda like an ALL cops are arseholes/anti cop thread, but its an anti lawyer one for a change... Oh hang on... it is an anti cop one... I think...

As previously mentioned [many times over the years] the growing number of middle aged 'clean skins' [with nothing more than a few minor traffic tickets] and bitter personal experiences with dodgy coppers, inept justice system and thieving lawyers must make individuals like yourself wonder what the fuck is going on? Really ask yourself a simple question, is DEATH lying?, am I?........All the more puzzling when most of the on-site KB coppers have never met a dodgy cop, experienced an archaic justice system or met money hungry lawyers???

Our stories do not match-up, why?


Of course it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999 percent of those who appear in court are as guilty as sin to start with?

Of course all of those hapless folk have been nicked by our exemplary police force that never makes mistakes??........come on Patrick that's the silliest thing you have ever said.

[CookMySock]

Remind yourself that cops have got a job to do. If they have clear evidence, witnesses who will back them up, photos and the whole shitload, then they will just shrug and process you with no drama - because they can.

They have tricks up their sleeve though - and one of them is to make you believe you are royally fucked, and that a confession is the only way. So you confess or just pay the fine. Job done!

Another trick, is to have six patrol cars turn up lights-abaze, and start ranting and screaming at you, and all but draw weapons on you, and then loudly accuse you of something you didn't do. You ARE going to feel like you are up shit creek here, and thats the WHOLE IDEA you see.

The bottom line, whether you did it or whether you didn't (immaterial), is whether there is good evidence to support their allegation. If there is, you are fucked. If there aint, then THEY are fucked. THAT is what the courts are there for. You can cry to the fuzz all you like but thats just going to make them think they have got you.

In MY OPINION, your best bet is take a look at their evidence (if they even have any) and if its bullshit and go see them and laugh at them and tell them theres no fucking way any competent district court judge is going to allow that line of hearsay, and tell them to get bent and walk out. In any case, you have got nothing to lose by doing this - so you angrily told the fuzz to get bent :crybaby: its not against the law.. Last time I did that they slammed the phone down. LOL. Just make SURE you are right first and then go hard.

The idea is to play them at their own game by turning their tactics on them. Don't be led into their game - thats what they want you to do. Tell them they are full of shit and their story is a fiction.

Of course, all this is on the basis that their charges ARE a trumped up load of horseshit. God help you telling them to get bent if they have a detailed, accurate story on you - they will just look down their nose at your pitiful self - and process you. :yawn:

Steve

[Renegade]

Remind yourself that cops have got a job to do. If they have clear evidence, witnesses who will back them up, photos and the whole shitload, then they will just shrug and process you with no drama - because they can.

They have tricks up their sleeve though - and one of them is to make you believe you are royally fucked, and that a confession is the only way. So you confess or just pay the fine. Job done!

Another trick, is to have six patrol cars turn up lights-abaze, and start ranting and screaming at you, and all but draw weapons on you, and then loudly accuse you of something you didn't do. You ARE going to feel like you are up shit creek here, and thats the WHOLE IDEA you see.

The bottom line, whether you did it or whether you didn't (immaterial), is whether there is good evidence to support their allegation. If there is, you are fucked. If there aint, then THEY are fucked. THAT is what the courts are there for. You can cry to the fuzz all you like but thats just going to make them think they have got you.

In MY OPINION, your best bet is take a look at their evidence (if they even have any) and if its bullshit and go see them and laugh at them and tell them theres no fucking way any competent district court judge is going to allow that line of hearsay, and tell them to get bent and walk out. In any case, you have got nothing to lose by doing this - so you angrily told the fuzz to get bent :crybaby: its not against the law.. Last time I did that they slammed the phone down. LOL. Just make SURE you are right first and then go hard.

The idea is to play them at their own game by turning their tactics on them. Don't be led into their game - thats what they want you to do. Tell them they are full of shit and their story is a fiction.

Of course, all this is on the basis that their charges ARE a trumped up load of horseshit. God help you telling them to get bent if they have a detailed, accurate story on you - they will just look down their nose at your pitiful self - and process you. :yawn:

Steve

or you be a cock on the phone and they record the call and charge you with misuse of a telephone under the telecommunications act, happens heaps.

[Patrick]

Of course all of those hapless folk have been nicked by our exemplary police force that never makes mistakes??........come on Patrick that's the silliest thing you have ever said.

My bad... of course you weren't challenging the integrity of lawyers. Silly me....

Surely it wasn't the 99.999999999999 thingy comment you refer to? That is why it was 99.99999999999999.....

Never make mistakes? Course they do. Otherwise it would be 100% wouldn't it...?

Mine is 100%. Can't speak for anyone else though....


....In MY OPINION, your best bet is take a look at their evidence (if they even have any) and if its bullshit and go see them and laugh at them and tell them theres no fucking way any competent district court judge is going to allow that line of hearsay,

Oh dear..... check out the Evidence Act 2006.... especially the part about the exceptions to "Hearsay Evidence...."

[CookMySock]

Oh dear..... check out the Evidence Act 2006.... especially the part about the exceptions to "Hearsay Evidence...."What I intended to do was inadvertently insult the officer concerned, not make a technical point of law. It was a personal remark designed to irritate, and leave them wondering why they would want to have a go at someone who was prepared to stand up for themselves - particularly useful when they already know that their informations are all but baseless.

I take your "oh dear" as condescending, perhaps also designed to inadvertently insult. Un-necessary in a forum of bikers such as this, where we all want to achieve the same thing. Perhaps my perception is incorrect, and you intent only to inform.. Either way, that is an interesting piece of information - Evident Act 2006. Thanks. :yes:


Steve

[Patrick]

What I intended to do was inadvertently insult the officer concerned, not make a technical point of law. It was a personal remark designed to irritate, and leave them wondering why they would want to have a go at someone who was prepared to stand up for themselves - particularly useful when they already know that their informations are all but baseless.

I take your "oh dear" as condescending, perhaps also designed to inadvertently insult. Un-necessary in a forum of bikers such as this, where we all want to achieve the same thing. Perhaps my perception is incorrect, and you intent only to inform.. Either way, that is an interesting piece of information - Evident Act 2006. Thanks. :yes:


Steve

So its OK to "inadvertently insult the officer" but if it is fired back at you, its "unnecessary" and not OK? What is good for the goose...:Pokey:

I read it as an ill informed bush lawyer call and intended to correctly inform.

BTW... You're welcome.;):niceone:

[peasea]

What I intended to do was inadvertently insult the officer concerned,

Mate! I'll HAVE to use that as a defence one day, love it!

[Swoop]

Some of the 5 gang banger murderers here are seeking ebail. (Electronic monitoring). What a joke.
It sounds fair to me. Hook them up to permanent wiring for 240 volts and have the switches in the station. Randomly flick the power on and off then wait for a scream. If it comes from their house, they are complying with the conditions of electronic bail.