I'm looking for some feedback about my court case......

Is this unfair/legal?

On Nov. 3rd, I went to court for driving on a suspended license (suspended for an unpaid ticket(minor speeding) that I forgot to pay. In August I went to court for the same thing and went on diversion, but rolled a stop sign, which revoked the diversion. So on Nov. 3rd, the judge gave me 6 mos.probation and a $350 fine, which I had discussed with the DA beforehand and I have no problem with.

On Dec. 15th, I get a letter in the mail from Dept. of Revenue saying that my license is suspended for 3 mos. beginning Dec. 15th (the day I received the letter).

I realize that this may be how it works in other states as well (I'm in KS), but to me, it seems like the DoR shouldn't be able to completely bypass the judicial system like that. When I was in court, another suspension was never even mentioned. The DoR says it's standard procedure to suspend anyone who pleads guilty to driving on a suspended DL, which I did, to get the lesser sentence in court, but was completely unaware that another branch of the govt. could add penalties to what the judge gave me, without ever discussing it in court.

??????????

:kick:

There is my feedback. Exert control over what you have control over.

If the department issuing the license has regulations requiring furthere suspension, that is beyond the control of the Court or the DA.

It's an automoatic penalty associated with driving while your license is suspended. There is a difference between the penalties issued by the court (your probation and fine), and those levied by the licensing agency which are not in any way governed by the judicial system.

Think of it this way. . . it's kind of like if you write a hot check to a store, your bank will charge you a fee, and the store can charge another fee. Neither cares what the other charges you, they both have their own policies.

It's not the duty or responsibility of the DA to inform you of the consequences of your actions.

Chalk it up as a life lesson and don't drive during this suspension.

eom

:evilgrin:

maybe you racked up the driving points

As I understand it, NJ set the precedent that driving is a "privilege" not a right. Now, as the story goes, since they license you for the privilege, they can suspend the privilege in an administrative manner, without benefit of a court decision.

Of course, if you live in a rural area, the reality is that the resultants of the suspension are orders of magnitude harsher than if you were to live in an urban/suburban area with mass transit options. Because of that, and because of the fact that much of NJ has such shitty mass transit options, and because there are 300+ ways to lose your license in NJ, only 100 or so of which have anything to do with poor operation of a motor vehicle, loss of license is the #1 reason for new welfare signups here. That is straight from the Dept. of Health&Human Services.

Damn interesting that they have not figured out that something is terribly broken. But then again, this is NJ we are talking about. Figuring out the bits that are broken is not its strong suit.

gotten (I made the same post a couple weeks ago) yet. I'm referring to the part about driving is a "privilege" not a right......they can suspend the privilege in an administrative manner, without benefit of a court decision."

I still think it's crap, but this explains how they do it without having to discuss it in court.

when you complained about being penalized for violating regulations you agreed to follow.

First you break whatever law got your license suspended to begin with.

Then you drive while your license is suspended.

Then, when they defer that case, you drive AGAIN while it's suspended, break another law by not stopping for a stop sign.

Then you get your license suspended for another 3 months.

So you repeatedly and knowingly violate the law, and complain when you are penalized for it?

You drove while suspended, then committed another traffic offense. Suck it up and learn. I have no patience with people that complain about "speed traps". Simple solution.... don't speed. There are rules to be followed. Not because they wish to inconvenience you, but for the good of all those around you. You know, the other people on the road as well as pedestrians. I really makes me angry when people cry about traffic infractions.

Have I received speeding tickets? You bet. Did I complain? To my friends. Did I pay them? You bet.

Sorry... channeling Donald Rumsfeld.

BUT.... and it's a big but, the two times I was speeding was on the Trans-Canada Hwy in Saskatchewan. Going 120 km/hr in a 100 km/hr zone, during the day. For those who don't know this, you can watch a dog run away for a week in Saskatchewan. Plus it was outside Regina where all the rookie RCMP's train. So, do you get my point?

FYI, I have been driving for over 32 years with no accidents! When I was 16 I not only took the school driving course but my dad insisted I take defensive driving. As well, he was an officer in training command (DOD) so he had some MPs teach my sister and I their defensive driving. She, at the age of 51, also has never had an accident. We do, also, know how to do 3-point turns (see "ROCKFORD FILES"). Doing 3-point turns is really cool on snow!:toast:

See #12

First of all, I didn drive AGAIN while it was suspended. When I was on diversion, my DL had already been reinstated. Rolling the stop sign revoked the diversion, so I went back to court for driving while suspended (the original time) and got probation and a fine, which I was fine with.

Second, I'm not complaining about being penalized for breaking the law. I was simply troubled by the fact that the DoR gave me a penalty based on the outcome of a court case that it didn't participate in.

Third, the post I responded to didn't even agree with me, they simply explained that driving is a priviledge, not a right, therefore doesn't need to use the judicial system to issue punishments.

So now that I know that, I have no complaints, just regrets.

plea.

If I sounded snippy.

Actually, the best system I have found is in Manitoba (province directly north of North Dakota).

They have public auto insurance and drivers licences locked together. When I lived there it didn't matter how many accidents YOU had been into, to insure a car. Where they hit you was in your driver's licence. Example. I drove for 14 years there. Paid $5/yr. for driver's licence. (I'm an excellent driver). Insurance on a 1980 Ford Fiesta (it was 1982 then) was $200/yr. Cheap like borscht. My friend, many accidents all her fault, paid ...

$1500/yr.

for her driver's licence.
Paid $800 for her car (brand new Mustang) in auto insurance. She paid more for auto insurance because the car was worth more. Not because she was a bad driver. Ergo, she paid a reasonable amount to register and insure her car, BUT paid out the butt to get her driver's licence.

Now, what is wrong with this? I see nothing. You may disagree.

To add another point, I was such a good driver, I received "merit points". It got to the point where I would joke that I would have to kill someone with my car to actually pay $10 a year for my licence.

Driving has been a "privilege" in just about every jurisdiction I ever heard of. Where the hell is driving a "right"?

NJ does in fact suspend your license administratively but only in certain limited situations, like where you accumulate more than 12 points, when you drive suspended, when you drive with no insurance and when you kill someone as a result of your driving.

For a second offense driving while suspended the fine, imposed in court, is a mandatory $750 and suspension for a year. If you are suspended for DWI the penalties are heavier and if you injure someone in an accident while suspended you do a mandatory 45-180 days in jail.

And in just about any jurisdiction if you "forget" to go to court they yank your license and issue a bench warrant so that if you are stopped you wind up in the can.

What should we do? Allow people to "forget" to go to court and drive while suspended because they might lose their jobs and go on welfare? Is that what they do in Kansas? If so get a pair of slippers from Dorothy and get the hell out of there.

you agreed to be bound by their rules. Therefore, you don't have to agree in court because they've already gotten your permission to be disciplined by the agency according to its policies and rules.

Anyone who has an attitude that is so blase' about getting a summons requiring a court appearance needs an attitude readjustment and you apparently got yours.

You're lucky the court didn't issue a bench warrant when you failed to appear (twice apparently). Then you would have gone to jail and had to post bail to get out. You don't "forget" a day in court.

Then mebbe this faux-i'm-not-the-perpetrator-i'm-really-a-victim crap wouldn't be necessary?

I dunno - just an idea....

Again, and I reiterate, you fought the law and the law won.

No sympathy, bro.

None.