This is what I found on Yelp (http://www.yelp.com/topic/los-angeles-help---should-i-contest-this-parking-ticket-westwood-area) unfortunately, the thread there was closed.
So I reopen this for discussion here: It appears when reading through the legalese below, that imposing parking tickets (=punishment) on the OWNER(!) of the car without the proof that the owner even drove the car/made the offense (the car could have been stolen for all we know), and without proper trial (by jury!) is unconstitutional, and therefore the whole ticket should be dismissed.
What does the esteemed readership of annoying parking ticket say?
Please comment!
So I reopen this for discussion here: It appears when reading through the legalese below, that imposing parking tickets (=punishment) on the OWNER(!) of the car without the proof that the owner even drove the car/made the offense (the car could have been stolen for all we know), and without proper trial (by jury!) is unconstitutional, and therefore the whole ticket should be dismissed.
What does the esteemed readership of annoying parking ticket say?
Please comment!
joseph "J.J." m. says:
Here's something interesting I found: (any Yelping lawyers feel free to comment on this...)
The parking ticket is a Bill of Attainder. Bill of Attainder is defined as: "Legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply to persons in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial is nothing more than a Bill of Attainder" (pains and penalties). U.S. vs Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 448-49. U.S. vs Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 315. "A special act of the legislature which inflicts a punishment less than death upon persons supposed to be guilty...without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings."
2 Wood. Lect 625. "The clause in the constitution prohibiting bills of attainder includes bills of pains and penalties." Story, Const. Sec 1338; Hare Am. Const. L 549; Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 323; Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cran. 138. See also :Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wall 333 Garner v. Los Angeles Board, 341 U.S. 716 Christie v. Luethh, 61 N.W. 2d 338, 341 United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3; Article 1, Section 10 States " No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."
The parking ticket as applied to Free and Natural Persons is plainly a Bill of Attainder (Bill of Pains and Penalties) and violates the law of the land. The significance of the clause "law of the land" is said to be statutes that would deprive a citizen of the rights of person or property without a regular trial according to the course and usage of the common law would not be the law of the land. Hoke v. Henderson, 15 N.C. 15, 25 "By law of the land is more clearly intended the general law, a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgement only after trial.
The meaning is that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property and immunities, under the protection of the general rules which govern our society. Everything which may pass under the form of an enactment is not, therefore, to be considered the law of the land." Dartmouth College Case, 4 Wheat 518.
The city issuing parking tickets is issuing complaints, determining guilt of an unknown individual with no proof the owner of the vehicle was the one who drove the vehicle, and imposing punishment in the form of fines all without due process and a judicial trial.
