Fox T-Bird/Cougar Forums

AS long as you show proof of insurance For the vehicle, you should be OK. I doubt if the court will check to make sure you as an individual are covered. ( I may also be wrong )As for the cop not actually seeing you do it, make sure there are no security cameras that may have caught it before you decide to fight it. And yes, I have heard of people being ticketed for excessive display of performance because of exhaust noise. Good luck dude! As you probably read, I'm fighting my own battle with traffic court. IT SUCKS!! $$$:burnout:

i would not fight it to much unless you got a game plan for the court room or a lawyer on your side. 6 months is a super long time but you could save up a lot of money for car parts in that time.

Sorry to hear about the whole thing i hope it works out for you and if they try and punish you i hope its minor.

WOW! I had no idea Haystack was an attorney and that he could practice in all states. good to know.... next time we get a traffic violation, he can defend us!

WOO HOO!

I'm no lawyer.

(2) (a) Whoever upon any way or in any place to which the public has a right of access, or any place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees, operates a motor vehicle recklessly, or operates such a vehicle negligently so that the lives or safety of the public might be endangered, or upon a bet or wager or in a race, or whoever operates a motor vehicle for the purpose of making a record and thereby violates any provision of section seventeen or any regulation under section eighteen, or whoever without stopping and making known his name, residence and the register number of his motor vehicle goes away after knowingly colliding with or otherwise causing injury to any other vehicle or property, or whoever loans or knowingly permits his license or learner’s permit to operate motor vehicles to be used by any person, or whoever makes false statements in an application for such a license or learner’s permit, or whoever knowingly makes any false statement in an application for registration of a motor vehicle, shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty dollars nor more than two hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not less than two weeks nor more than two years, or both; and whoever uses a motor vehicle without authority knowing that such use is unauthorized shall, for the first offense be punished by a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not less than thirty days nor more than two years, or both, and for a second offense by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or in a house of correction for not less than thirty days nor more than two and one half years, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment; and whoever is found guilty of a third or subsequent offense of such use without authority committed within five years of the earliest of his two most recent prior offenses shall be punished by a fine of not less than two hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than two and one half years in a house of correction or for not less than two and one half years nor more than five years in the state prison or by both fine and imprisonment. A summons may be issued instead of a warrant for arrest upon a complaint for a violation of any provision of this paragraph if in the judgment of the court or justice receiving the complaint there is reason to believe that the defendant will appear upon a summons.

There shall be an assessment of $250 against a person who, by a court of the commonwealth, is convicted of, is placed on probation for or is granted a continuance without a finding for or otherwise pleads guilty to or admits to a finding of sufficient facts of operating a motor vehicle negligently so that the lives or safety of the public might be endangered under this section; but $125 of the $250 collected under this assessment shall be deposited by the court with the state treasurer into the Head Injury Treatment Services Trust Fund and the remaining amount of said assessment shall be credited to the General Fund. At the discretion of the court, an assessment under this paragraph may be reduced or waived only upon a written finding of fact that such payment would cause the person against whom the assessment is imposed severe financial hardship. Such a finding shall be made independently of a finding of indigence for purposes of appointing counsel. If the person is sentenced to a correctional facility in the commonwealth and the assessment has not been paid, the court shall note the assessment on the mittimus.

Chapter 90: Section 16. Offensive or illegal operation of motor vehicles


Section 16. No person shall operate a motor vehicle, nor shall any owner of such vehicle permit it to be operated, in or over any way, public or private, whether laid out under authority of law or otherwise, which motor vehicles are prohibited from using, provided notice of such prohibition is conspicuously posted at the entrance to such way. No person shall operate a motor vehicle, nor shall any owner of such vehicle permit it to be operated upon any way, except fire department and fire patrol apparatus, unless such motor vehicle is equipped with a ler to prevent excessive or unnecessary noise, which ler is in good working order and in constant operation, and complies with such minimum standards for construction and performance as the registrar may prescribe. No person shall use a ler cut-out or by-pass. No person shall operate a motor vehicle on any way which motor vehicle is equipped (1) with a ler from which the baffle plates, screens or other original internal parts have been removed and not replaced; or (2) with an exhaust system which has been modified in a manner which will amplify or increase the noise emitted by the exhaust. No person operating a motor vehicle shall sound a bell, horn or other device, nor in any manner operate such motor vehicle so as to make a harsh, objectionable or unreasonable noise, nor permit to escape from such vehicle smoke or pollutants in such amounts or at such levels as may violate motor vehicle air pollution control regulations adopted under the provisions of chapter one hundred and eleven. No siren shall be mounted upon any motor vehicle except fire apparatus, ambulances, vehicles used in official line of duty by any member of the police or fire fighting forces of the commonwealth or any agency or political subdivision thereof, and vehicles owned by call fire fighters or by persons with police powers and operated in official line of duty, unless authorized by the registrar. No person shall use on or in connection with any motor vehicle a spot light, so called, the rays from which shine more than two feet above the road at a distance of thirty feet from the vehicle, except that such a spot light may be used for the purpose of reading signs, and as an auxiliary light in cases of necessity when the other lights required by law fail to operate.

No person, except a duly authorized person driving an emergency fire vehicle, shall operate a motor vehicle equipped with metal studded tires upon a public way between May the first and November the first; provided, however, the registrar may authorize the use of such tires before November the first, if weather conditions require the use thereof. Whoever violates the provisions of this paragraph shall be punished by a fine of not more than fifty dollars.

I'm no lawyer.

I've successfully defended many criminal motor vehicle offense, and I can often get a dismissal or the charges voided entirely, especially in cases where there is no damage or injury.

WHAT???? I am in shock! After all,  it sounded like that was what you were saying in this statement....





Sounds like you were indicating that you have defended many of these kinds of cases.... like a real lawyer. Maybe you should state that from now on when you are trying to give law advice. I mean, you could set someone up for a big fall just because you "looked it up on google." and "that's how you interpreted the law to say".

I would suggest that DaBoss get a real lawyer rather than someone who tries to sound like one online. ;)

Good to know that you understood that. However, there are some 'kids' who might come here and take what he says about it as coming from him. His statement that he has defended many criminal motor vehicle offenses, and  often gotten a dismissal or the charges voided entirely,  indicates that he is a lawyer.
This can be misleading to people and if someone were to take it as coming from him, thinking he's a lawyer and has actually been to court to defend these types of things, they could go to court using the information from him and get their azzes handed to them on a plate.

like I said, it's just better to not try to sound like something you aren't so others don't get hurt from it.

As for Scott's comment about me and not counting.... it's his opinion, and you know what they say about opinions. ;)

Yes i do and apparently my first point has been proven above.  You took the conversation to a new level  by calling me a what?  that just isnt right.  I dont know you nor have you ever pm'd me or had any disucssion with me, but you call me an a-hole. 

My point was that everything was fine up to post 31 and you made an observation and decide to be sarcastic and build up haystack to the level you know full well he is not.  He isnt  lawyer, i know that,you know that but for some odd reason, you think a "kid" might come to a "car" site to get legal help.

If a kid comes to a car site to get legal help, shame on him.  To get advise, yes and understandable but not real help.


Pressing forward , i noticed after haystack replied then you grounded him or put him in his place.  He replied, he elaborated, he explained himself, that should have been the end of it.  Nope, you had to shame him.

Perhaps you did not notice that the level of detail and effort haystack put in was genuine and thoughtful.  Everyone here knew haystack was pulling good info from resources, and everyone here knows haystack is not a lawyer,, being sarcastic about him being one only to cut him down was not right.
I was actully impressed cause i dont see that too often out of him but that again is just my opinion.

My wording could have been better but i meant no harm,, I should have said something along the lines of "the two of them (haystack et daboss) know what the scoop is.

my comments were just comments but did contribute to the thread athough the really do not add to the conversation between daboss or haystack , therefore they dont really count for much.  Your comments distracted the thread topic but you did have a point to make.  I suppose its the way you make your point that matters.

you do matter, but your comments and the subtance of your reasoning really did not make much sense.  Anybody with sense woudl not come to a car site for "legal" help, advise yes but not genuine legal help.

This was up to post 31 , an informative thread most of which haystacks labor was helpful.  Tearing down his good feeling of helping someone becaue he did not follow your standard operating procedure isnt right.

I know all this typing did no good, sorry for the rant.  I dont know haystack from the next guy, i do know that hes been around a long time and with experience, i can say nearly half the time he types something, people shut him down.  there is a time and a place for everyting , this wasnt the time to distract a good thread in need of help with minor bs we all understood as a given., ie- haystack isnt a lawyer nor am i an Asshole.

it's his opinion, and you know what they say about opinions. ;)

Did I get sarcastic? Maybe, but it was to get a point across.

As for Scott's comment .