[FoRK] I just had to do it

Lawnun lawnun at gmail.com
Thu Feb 17 15:42:38 PST 2011

I probably should not have appealed to fairness.  However, there are some
bits of fairness in play in California:

> http://www.gordonrees.com/newsroom/viewNews.cfm?contentID=761
>> Plaintiffs' lawyers in California may have a secret weapon to use against
>> the drug and medical device industry. Like all states, California has a
>> consumer protection law that prohibits unfair competition and deceptive
>> trade practices. However, California's law is unique in that it is unusually
>> broad in scope and permits just about anyone to bring a claim against a
>> company for being treated unfairly. "Unfair" can be essentially whatever a
>> plaintiff says it is, and plaintiffs' lawyers have the added incentive of
>> being awarded attorneys' fees.
> And there is supposed to be procedural fairness:
> aja.ncsc.dni.us/courtrv/cr44-1/CR44-1-2Denton.pdf
> And common law countries typically _do_ factor in fairness:
> http://www.ejcl.org/94/art94-2.html

California's consumer protection laws apply to commercial activities, not
whether or not a cop
 has made a discretionary decision to tag you for violating a statute or
ordinance. And generally if you're hanging your hat on fairness, you're
screwed from the get-go.

Insofar as your argument goes, you have a better shot of pinpointing how the
tickets are being granted (e.g., are there specific times during the month
when the cop is more likely to be sitting at that particular post and
popping folks? Has there been an increase in the frequency?) rather than
trying to argue that a police were just picking on you and your assessments
of what is, and is not safe should somehow trump an officers' judgment.  "An
automobile stop is thus subject to the constitutional imperative that it not
be "unreasonable" under the circumstances. *As a general matter, the
decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable
cause to believe that a traffic** violation has occurred.*" Whren v. U.S.,
517 US 806,809-10 (citing *Delaware* v. *Prouse,* 440 U. S. 648, 653

But I'm sure you'll provide a string of anecdotes as to why that shouldn't
be the case, and how I'm involved in the conspiracy, etc.,


More information about the FoRK mailing list