Re: speeding ticket

[Ext User(Spooky)]

<lemmiwinks.au@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126744351.498132.104740@g43g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Vincent wrote:
>> But I digress, the original query was :
>> Would the fact that the intersecting street named was not there be a
>> deciding factor in a magistrates decision as what happened years ago,
>> or have they changed the laws to protect the policemans version and
>> statement?
>
> I doubt a magistrate would care. Face it, they will side with the
> filth. I had a cop defect a car I owned for being unable to open the
> bonnet (operator error, I wasn't there and they couldnt find the latch
> once the bonnet was released). He also ticked the oil/fuel leaks box
> on the defect notice, despite admitting that he couldn't raise the
> bonnet. How do you see oil leaks if you cant see the engine? No point
> contesting it in court

Contest what in court? A defect? ROFLMAO.

>(even if I could have afforded it) as the beak
> will just take the side of the filth. When pressed over many months
> and many letters to my MP the final respose from the pigs was "We
> checked the oil leak box as a precaution for the saftey of the vehicle
> occupants". Pure gold, I would never have come up with such a bold
> lie.
>
> Bottom line, you were in the wrong, cop it sweet, pay the fine and
> chalk it up to experience. The only way to win is not get pulled over
> by the cunts in the first place.

What a charming, well spoken person you are. And, quite
a vocabulary too.

Spooky

[Ext User(lemmiwinks.au@gmail.com)]

Spooky wrote:
> Contest what in court? A defect? ROFLMAO.

Sure, why not? It was false, he lied, even contradicting himself on
the defect notice. Just because he's a copper doesn't mean he's
allowed to lie to members of the public does it? Particularly when it
costs aforementioned members of the public time and money as a direct
result of said lies.

> What a charming, well spoken person you are. And, quite
> a vocabulary too.

Thanks. You and your fellow officers could certainly learn some
lessons, like not starting a sentence with 'and', or at the very least
try not to be so stupid as to contradict your own lies. Of course if
you were to stick to the truth you wouldn't be able to keep up with
your ticket quota, so I guess it's a rock and a hard place for you. My
heart bleeds...

[Ext User(Spooky)]

<lemmiwinks.au@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128406295.489818.306950@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> Spooky wrote:
>> Contest what in court? A defect? ROFLMAO.
>
> Sure, why not? It was false, he lied, even contradicting himself on
> the defect notice. Just because he's a copper doesn't mean he's
> allowed to lie to members of the public does it? Particularly when it
> costs aforementioned members of the public time and money as a direct
> result of said lies.

Perhaps I should put it in plain English for you. You CAN'T
contest a defect in court!

>
>> What a charming, well spoken person you are. And, quite
>> a vocabulary too.
>
> Thanks. You and your fellow officers could certainly learn some
> lessons, like not starting a sentence with 'and', or at the very least
> try not to be so stupid as to contradict your own lies. Of course if
> you were to stick to the truth you wouldn't be able to keep up with
> your ticket quota, so I guess it's a rock and a hard place for you. My
> heart bleeds...

Huh????

Spooky

[Ext User(G-S)]

Spooky wrote:
>
> Perhaps I should put it in plain English for you. You CAN'T
> contest a defect in court!
>
Some years ago I was pulled over and a young police officer looked
around the Corolla Van I was driving and looked and looked and looked.

Finally he said your tyres are unroadworthy. I lent into the glove box
and removed the tread depth tester we used when we did the roadworthy
tests at work and the disposable camera kept in their in case of an
accident.

I measured the tread depth (legal) and took photographs of the tyre
concerned. During this the police officer was getting exremely
agitated, and finally asked what I was doing.

I explained I was verifying my 'expert opinion' (as a roadworthy testing
station signatory) that the tyre was not in fact unroadworthy.

I then stated that "I wished to comment in the 'comments' section of the
ticket that in my 'expert opinion' and supported by the photographs and
reading from the tread depth gauge that the ticket was factually incorrect.

The police office gave me a horrified look and said "but I've already
written it out!" He looked like someone had stolen his favourite toy to
be honest.

I said see you in court and he looked even more "ARRGGHHH".

So given that I had all this why do you say I could not have contested
this particular ticket for a defect.

Oh... he waved me off frowing at the ticket book... and I _never_ even
got the ticket.


G-S

[Ext User(Boxer)]

"G-S" <geoff@castbus.com.au> wrote in message
news:11k5v2kf1hl6r03@news.supernews.com...
> Spooky wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps I should put it in plain English for you. You CAN'T
>> contest a defect in court!
>>
> Some years ago I was pulled over and a young police officer looked around
> the Corolla Van I was driving and looked and looked and looked.
>
> Finally he said your tyres are unroadworthy. I lent into the glove box
> and removed the tread depth tester we used when we did the roadworthy
> tests at work and the disposable camera kept in their in case of an
> accident.
>
> I measured the tread depth (legal) and took photographs of the tyre
> concerned. During this the police officer was getting exremely agitated,
> and finally asked what I was doing.
>
> I explained I was verifying my 'expert opinion' (as a roadworthy testing
> station signatory) that the tyre was not in fact unroadworthy.
>
> I then stated that "I wished to comment in the 'comments' section of the
> ticket that in my 'expert opinion' and supported by the photographs and
> reading from the tread depth gauge that the ticket was factually
> incorrect.
>
> The police office gave me a horrified look and said "but I've already
> written it out!" He looked like someone had stolen his favourite toy to
> be honest.
>
> I said see you in court and he looked even more "ARRGGHHH".
>
> So given that I had all this why do you say I could not have contested
> this particular ticket for a defect.
>
> Oh... he waved me off frowing at the ticket book... and I _never_ even got
> the ticket.
>
>
> G-S

I have called their bluff on a number of occasions and had similar results,
cops sometimes expect the public to roll over and pay the ticket. I
generally contest them all in court and whilst I have met with mixed results
the effort overall has been worthwhile.

Boxer

[Ext User(Stan Gifford)]

Boxer wrote On 05/10/05 09:03 AM,:
> "G-S" <geoff@castbus.com.au> wrote in message
> news:11k5v2kf1hl6r03@news.supernews.com...
>
>>Spooky wrote:
>>
>>>Perhaps I should put it in plain English for you. You CAN'T
>>>contest a defect in court!
>>>
>>
>>Some years ago I was pulled over and a young police officer looked around
>>the Corolla Van I was driving and looked and looked and looked.
>>
>>Finally he said your tyres are unroadworthy. I lent into the glove box
>>and removed the tread depth tester we used when we did the roadworthy
>>tests at work and the disposable camera kept in their in case of an
>>accident.
>>
>>I measured the tread depth (legal) and took photographs of the tyre
>>concerned. During this the police officer was getting exremely agitated,
>>and finally asked what I was doing.
>>
>>I explained I was verifying my 'expert opinion' (as a roadworthy testing
>>station signatory) that the tyre was not in fact unroadworthy.
>>
>>I then stated that "I wished to comment in the 'comments' section of the
>>ticket that in my 'expert opinion' and supported by the photographs and
>>reading from the tread depth gauge that the ticket was factually
>>incorrect.
>>
>>The police office gave me a horrified look and said "but I've already
>>written it out!" He looked like someone had stolen his favourite toy to
>>be honest.
>>
>>I said see you in court and he looked even more "ARRGGHHH".
>>
>>So given that I had all this why do you say I could not have contested
>>this particular ticket for a defect.
>>
>>Oh... he waved me off frowing at the ticket book... and I _never_ even got
>>the ticket.
>>
>>
>>G-S
>
>
> I have called their bluff on a number of occasions and had similar results,
> cops sometimes expect the public to roll over and pay the ticket. I
> generally contest them all in court and whilst I have met with mixed results
> the effort overall has been worthwhile.
>
> Boxer
>
>


Hmm - Fairly sure that Chris from the MCC NSW went to court for a
'defected' exhaust - after being trailed for a few Km - and then getting
his bike gone over until they could find something/anything. Half way
thru the hearing/trial the police withdrew the complaint - (Chris is a
noise expert - the police used the 'we are experts at testing for noise
with our ears' statement.

I am sure that Zebee can give more.

Tis funny btw how the police state that they are not interested in
giving out tickets willy-nilly - but there are instances like Chris's
where they followed him hoping he would do something wrong - then when
he didn't they pulled him over anyway!

Stan

[Ext User(Spooky)]

"G-S" <geoff@castbus.com.au> wrote in message
news:11k5v2kf1hl6r03@news.supernews.com...
> Spooky wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps I should put it in plain English for you. You CAN'T
>> contest a defect in court!
>>
> Some years ago I was pulled over and a young police officer looked around
> the Corolla Van I was driving and looked and looked and looked.
>
> Finally he said your tyres are unroadworthy. I lent into the glove box
> and removed the tread depth tester we used when we did the roadworthy
> tests at work and the disposable camera kept in their in case of an
> accident.
>
> I measured the tread depth (legal) and took photographs of the tyre
> concerned. During this the police officer was getting exremely agitated,
> and finally asked what I was doing.
>
> I explained I was verifying my 'expert opinion' (as a roadworthy testing
> station signatory) that the tyre was not in fact unroadworthy.
>
> I then stated that "I wished to comment in the 'comments' section of the
> ticket that in my 'expert opinion' and supported by the photographs and
> reading from the tread depth gauge that the ticket was factually
> incorrect.

That would never happen. I write what *I* want in the narrative,
not what the offender wants.

>
> The police office gave me a horrified look and said "but I've already
> written it out!" He looked like someone had stolen his favourite toy to
> be honest.
>
> I said see you in court and he looked even more "ARRGGHHH".

It's no big deal. If, in the Officers opinion, ghe tyre was unroadworthy,
and he acted in good faith, I'm sure the lat thing he would be worried
about is a day in Court proving that yoour tyre was illegal.

>
> So given that I had all this why do you say I could not have contested
> this particular ticket for a defect.

I never said that a ticket could not be contested. I said a defect notice
could not be delt with at Court.

>
> Oh... he waved me off frowing at the ticket book... and I _never_ even got
> the ticket.

So? Maybe you bluffed an inexperienced cop. Maybe he was bluffing YOU.

Spooky
>
>
> G-S
>
>
>

[Ext User(Spooky)]

"Stan Gifford" <stan.gifford_n.o.s.p.a.m@sun.com> wrote in message
news:43431A2D.6020303@sun.com...
>
>
> Boxer wrote On 05/10/05 09:03 AM,:
>> "G-S" <geoff@castbus.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:11k5v2kf1hl6r03@news.supernews.com...
>>
>>>Spooky wrote:
>>>
>>>>Perhaps I should put it in plain English for you. You CAN'T
>>>>contest a defect in court!
>>>>
>>>
>>>Some years ago I was pulled over and a young police officer looked around
>>>the Corolla Van I was driving and looked and looked and looked.
>>>
>>>Finally he said your tyres are unroadworthy. I lent into the glove box
>>>and removed the tread depth tester we used when we did the roadworthy
>>>tests at work and the disposable camera kept in their in case of an
>>>accident.
>>>
>>>I measured the tread depth (legal) and took photographs of the tyre
>>>concerned. During this the police officer was getting exremely agitated,
>>>and finally asked what I was doing.
>>>
>>>I explained I was verifying my 'expert opinion' (as a roadworthy testing
>>>station signatory) that the tyre was not in fact unroadworthy.
>>>
>>>I then stated that "I wished to comment in the 'comments' section of the
>>>ticket that in my 'expert opinion' and supported by the photographs and
>>>reading from the tread depth gauge that the ticket was factually
>>>incorrect.
>>>
>>>The police office gave me a horrified look and said "but I've already
>>>written it out!" He looked like someone had stolen his favourite toy to
>>>be honest.
>>>
>>>I said see you in court and he looked even more "ARRGGHHH".
>>>
>>>So given that I had all this why do you say I could not have contested
>>>this particular ticket for a defect.
>>>
>>>Oh... he waved me off frowing at the ticket book... and I _never_ even
>>>got
>>>the ticket.
>>>
>>>
>>>G-S
>>
>>
>> I have called their bluff on a number of occasions and had similar
>> results,
>> cops sometimes expect the public to roll over and pay the ticket. I
>> generally contest them all in court and whilst I have met with mixed
>> results
>> the effort overall has been worthwhile.
>>
>> Boxer
>>
>>
>
>
> Hmm - Fairly sure that Chris from the MCC NSW went to court for a
> 'defected' exhaust - after being trailed for a few Km - and then getting
> his bike gone over until they could find something/anything. Half way
> thru the hearing/trial the police withdrew the complaint - (Chris is a
> noise expert - the police used the 'we are experts at testing for noise
> with our ears' statement.
>
> I am sure that Zebee can give more.
>
> Tis funny btw how the police state that they are not interested in
> giving out tickets willy-nilly - but there are instances like Chris's
> where they followed him hoping he would do something wrong - then when
> he didn't they pulled him over anyway!

That's one side of the story....

Spooky

[Ext User(J5)]

"Spooky" <spooky24042@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pTN0f.7988$U51.5451@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Stan Gifford" <stan.gifford_n.o.s.p.a.m@sun.com> wrote in message
> news:43431A2D.6020303@sun.com...

>>
>>
>> Hmm - Fairly sure that Chris from the MCC NSW went to court for a
>> 'defected' exhaust - after being trailed for a few Km - and then getting
>> his bike gone over until they could find something/anything. Half way
>> thru the hearing/trial the police withdrew the complaint - (Chris is a
>> noise expert - the police used the 'we are experts at testing for noise
>> with our ears' statement.

that would be 30 mins after the bike being tested for noise and the sticker
fitted
and cetificate in hand and despite this was still handed the ticket

>>
>> I am sure that Zebee can give more.
>>
>> Tis funny btw how the police state that they are not interested in
>> giving out tickets willy-nilly - but there are instances like Chris's
>> where they followed him hoping he would do something wrong - then when
>> he didn't they pulled him over anyway!
>
> That's one side of the story....

and the one that was won in court and also complimented on his ability in
court

>
> Spooky

[Ext User(Knobdoodle)]

"Spooky" <spooky24042@hotmail.com> wrote in message:
> "G-S" <geoff@castbus.com.au> wrote in message
~
>> I then stated that "I wished to comment in the 'comments' section of the
>> ticket that in my 'expert opinion' and supported by the photographs and
>> reading from the tread depth gauge that the ticket was factually
>> incorrect.
>
> That would never happen. I write what *I* want in the narrative,
> not what the offender wants.
>
I'm always amazed at how you just cannot differentiate between your own
opinion and actual fact Spooky. (And the way you just automatically assert
that ALL coppers everywhere are exactly the same as you!)
You really are going to have trouble fitting in to the REAL world if you
ever take that shirt off....
~
>> Oh... he waved me off frowing at the ticket book... and I _never_ even
>> got the ticket.
>
> So? Maybe you bluffed an inexperienced cop. Maybe he was bluffing YOU.
>
Maybe he's normal and YOU'RE the weirdo......
--
Knob

[Ext User(Knobdoodle)]

"Spooky" <spooky24042@hotmail.com> wrote:
> That's one side of the story....
>
[waits patiently].............
.........
........
.......AND?
--
Knob

[Ext User(Spooky)]

"J5" <signupbox@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CYN0f.285$6H6.5481@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>
> "Spooky" <spooky24042@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pTN0f.7988$U51.5451@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Stan Gifford" <stan.gifford_n.o.s.p.a.m@sun.com> wrote in message
>> news:43431A2D.6020303@sun.com...
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm - Fairly sure that Chris from the MCC NSW went to court for a
>>> 'defected' exhaust - after being trailed for a few Km - and then getting
>>> his bike gone over until they could find something/anything. Half way
>>> thru the hearing/trial the police withdrew the complaint - (Chris is a
>>> noise expert - the police used the 'we are experts at testing for noise
>>> with our ears' statement.
>
> that would be 30 mins after the bike being tested for noise and the
> sticker fitted
> and cetificate in hand and despite this was still handed the ticket
>
>>>
>>> I am sure that Zebee can give more.
>>>
>>> Tis funny btw how the police state that they are not interested in
>>> giving out tickets willy-nilly - but there are instances like Chris's
>>> where they followed him hoping he would do something wrong - then when
>>> he didn't they pulled him over anyway!
>>
>> That's one side of the story....
>
> and the one that was won in court and also complimented on his ability in
> court

As I said, that's one side of the story. The side he's sprouting about.
Give more details. Name (Defendant and Police), Court, date.
I'll check it out and find the truth.

Spooky

[Ext User(Spooky)]

"Knobdoodle" <knobdoodle@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:4343abee$0$49010$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
> "Spooky" <spooky24042@hotmail.com> wrote in message:
>> "G-S" <geoff@castbus.com.au> wrote in message
> ~
>>> I then stated that "I wished to comment in the 'comments' section of the
>>> ticket that in my 'expert opinion' and supported by the photographs and
>>> reading from the tread depth gauge that the ticket was factually
>>> incorrect.
>>
>> That would never happen. I write what *I* want in the narrative,
>> not what the offender wants.
>>
> I'm always amazed at how you just cannot differentiate between your own
> opinion and actual fact Spooky.

He can ask, or demand, all he likes for the cop to write something
on the infringement notice, but at the end of the day, it's the cop's
evidence and he'll write what he pleases. If the offender has something
to say about it, he can say it in Court.

>(And the way you just automatically assert that ALL coppers everywhere are
>exactly the same as you!)

We, just imagine if I DIDN'T think they were the same as me.
I have to assume that every Cop has the same work and moral
ethics as I do. Thats' not to say I am naive enough to think that
there are no bad apples, but they usually get caught and weeded out.

> You really are going to have trouble fitting in to the REAL world if you
> ever take that shirt off....

Not really. What I ive in IS the real world. I get to see both sides
though. You only get to see ne side.

> ~
>>> Oh... he waved me off frowing at the ticket book... and I _never_ even
>>> got the ticket.
>>
>> So? Maybe you bluffed an inexperienced cop. Maybe he was bluffing YOU.
>>
> Maybe he's normal and YOU'RE the weirdo......

Who said anything aout weirdos?

Spooky

[Ext User(G-S)]

Spooky wrote:
> "G-S" <geoff@castbus.com.au> wrote in message
> news:11k5v2kf1hl6r03@news.supernews.com...
>> Spooky wrote:
>>> Perhaps I should put it in plain English for you. You CAN'T
>>> contest a defect in court!
>>>
>> Some years ago I was pulled over and a young police officer looked around
>> the Corolla Van I was driving and looked and looked and looked.
>>
>> Finally he said your tyres are unroadworthy. I lent into the glove box
>> and removed the tread depth tester we used when we did the roadworthy
>> tests at work and the disposable camera kept in their in case of an
>> accident.
>>
>> I measured the tread depth (legal) and took photographs of the tyre
>> concerned. During this the police officer was getting exremely agitated,
>> and finally asked what I was doing.
>>
>> I explained I was verifying my 'expert opinion' (as a roadworthy testing
>> station signatory) that the tyre was not in fact unroadworthy.
>>
>> I then stated that "I wished to comment in the 'comments' section of the
>> ticket that in my 'expert opinion' and supported by the photographs and
>> reading from the tread depth gauge that the ticket was factually
>> incorrect.
>
> That would never happen. I write what *I* want in the narrative,
> not what the offender wants.

I never said that he had to. I was taking notes into the note taker as
well, if he had refused no biggie.

>> The police office gave me a horrified look and said "but I've already
>> written it out!" He looked like someone had stolen his favourite toy to
>> be honest.
>>
>> I said see you in court and he looked even more "ARRGGHHH".
>
> It's no big deal. If, in the Officers opinion, ghe tyre was unroadworthy,
> and he acted in good faith, I'm sure the lat thing he would be worried
> about is a day in Court proving that yoour tyre was illegal.

I know it's not a big deal, but I honestly believe he wasn't acting in
good faith.

And no I wouldn't expect him to be worried about it. But he wouldn't
have proved the tyre was illegal... simply because it was not.
Independant roadworthy testing and access to the relevant RWC
regulations make that an easy call.

However that doesn't mean people should roll over when they know they
have done nothing wrong either!

>> So given that I had all this why do you say I could not have contested
>> this particular ticket for a defect.
>
> I never said that a ticket could not be contested. I said a defect notice
> could not be delt with at Court.

No... I would have dealt with that by returning the vehicle to our
Roadworthy Testing Station, examing the vehicle and rectifying faults
(if any). In this case there were no faults.

>> Oh... he waved me off frowing at the ticket book... and I _never_ even got
>> the ticket.
>
> So? Maybe you bluffed an inexperienced cop. Maybe he was bluffing YOU.
>
I bluffed no one... the facts of the matter were the tyre _was_
roadworthy, which means that 1. either he wasn't acting in good faith or
2. his RWC training (in a basic area) wasn't up to scratch.

The regulations at that time were that tyre pattern needed to be
complete, not showing uneven wear patterns, not worn lower than the wear
markers, not showing damage to the tyre or sidewalls and not of less
than a certain depth.

Those are all fairly simply things to check.


G-S

[Ext User(Knobdoodle)]

"Spooky" <spooky24042@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VhO0f.8010$U51.1508@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Knobdoodle" <knobdoodle@notmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4343abee$0$49010$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>> "Spooky" <spooky24042@hotmail.com> wrote in message:
>>> That would never happen. I write what *I* want in the narrative,
>>> not what the offender wants.
>>>
>> I'm always amazed at how you just cannot differentiate between your own
>> opinion and actual fact Spooky.
>
> He can ask, or demand, all he likes for the cop to write something
> on the infringement notice, but at the end of the day, it's the cop's
> evidence and he'll write what he pleases. If the offender has something
> to say about it, he can say it in Court.
>
So that means your "That would never happen" was wrong; pure and simple.
See; it's not a fact if it's only in your head Spooky (no matter what the
voices tell you).
~
>>(And the way you just automatically assert that ALL coppers everywhere
>>are exactly the same as you!)
>
> We, just imagine if I DIDN'T think they were the same as me.
> I have to assume that every Cop has the same work and moral
> ethics as I do. Thats' not to say I am naive enough to think that
> there are no bad apples, but they usually get caught and weeded out.
>
Then why do you post here so naively and try to convince US that there are
no bad apples then?
We KNOW they're there because it's US who are their prey.
Having you pop up every second month calling us liars and playing
make-believe just makes YOU look stupider!
Talk FACT or pull your head in; there's enough fools blathering in aus.cars
already!
~
>> You really are going to have trouble fitting in to the REAL world if you
>> ever take that shirt off....
>
> Not really. What I ive in IS the real world. I get to see both sides
> though. You only get to see ne side.
>
You are in for a sad sad shock.....
>>>
>> Maybe he's normal and YOU'RE the weirdo......
>
> Who said anything aout weirdos?
>
Me.
Been saying it since I first caught you publicly wanking. (Remember?)
--
Knob

[Ext User(Moike)]

Knobdoodle wrote:
> "Spooky" <spooky24042@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>That's one side of the story....
>>
>
> [waits patiently].............
> ........
> .......
> ......AND?
> --
> Knob
>
>
It's Spooky. His last line of defence is to call people liars.

Moike

[Ext User(IK)]

Knobdoodle wrote:
>
> "Spooky" <spooky24042@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>That would never happen. I write what *I*
>>want in the narrative, not what the offender
>>wants.
>
> I'm always amazed at how you just cannot differentiate between your own
> opinion and actual fact Spooky. (And the way you just automatically assert
> that ALL coppers everywhere are exactly the same as you!)
> You really are going to have trouble fitting in to the REAL world if you
> ever take that shirt off....

Is this an apt point to mention this?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/police-drivers-sneer-at-the-rules/2005/10/04/1128191720268.html

[Ext User(Moike)]

Spooky wrote:

> So? Maybe you bluffed an inexperienced cop. Maybe he was bluffing YOU.

Just what do you imagine might have been the point of a copper
'bluffing' a punter?
What do you imagine he might have been trying to do.

You suggested he might be bluffing, You must have some reason in mind.

I can't imagine a situation how 'bluffing' in these circumstances would
not be an abuse of power.

But it's what you are suggesting....

Moike

[Ext User(Moike)]

Spooky wrote:


> I have to assume that every Cop has the same work and moral
> ethics as I do.

So do you regularly use threats to book people as a bluff?

Moike

[Ext User(Knobdoodle)]

"Spooky" <spooky24042@hotmail.com> wrote:
> As I said, that's one side of the story. The side he's sprouting about.
> Give more details. Name (Defendant and Police), Court, date.
> I'll check it out and find the truth.
>
TRUTH?!!?
You mean the cop's story don't you? (Or are you locked in that
opinion/fact transposition again?)
--
Knob
(BTW; Spooky has NEVER admitted he was wrong here so there is absolutely
nothing to gain by giving him the info he's after... but I'm sure there's
a hell of a lot to lose!)