offtherecord.com

Jeff Higgins · 08-05-2023, 03:40 PM

A buddy of mine recently turned me onto this service, and app-based traffic attorney locator and hiring kind of thing. Supposed to be pretty simple - just take a photo of your ticket and submit via their app. They handle everything else, claiming a 97% "success" rate. Money back guarantee. Sounds too good to be true. This guy found out that it is... Have any of you used it? How did it work out for you?

Superman · 08-05-2023, 04:01 PM

A good law firm can beat nearly anything, but they are spendy. Everything that is...except the much more serious infractions like DUI. Even then...maybe. But that gets REALLY spendy.

Jeff Higgins · 08-05-2023, 04:20 PM

Yeah, I use a local lawyer of very good reputation. She starts by actually reviewing the paperwork in one's specific case for any "gotchas". That is, unfortunately, about the only way we well and truly "win" - a summary dismissal on procedural (paperwork) grounds.

No one "wins" in court in Washington if it actually goes to trial. Traffic violations are now "civil" violations, wherein the accusing authority need only provide a "preponderance" of "evidence". Which is no more than the accusing officer saying "yessir, Ah seen 'em do it".

So we are reduced to seeing if the officer, then the court clerks, "dotted all of their 'I's' or crossed all of their 'T's". Failing in that regard, we are then reduced to negotiating with the prosecutor and/or court to reduce the infraction to a monetarily equivalent non-moving violation that does not go on our record. The last time I did this, I got a speeding ticket reduced to a seatbelt ticket. On my Ducati.

All they really want is our money...

Zeke · 08-05-2023, 04:28 PM

"All they really want is our money..."

That works out. If your wallet stings then you will have a tendency to not speed. Indirect costs like a rise in insurance is not the same as you shelling out a few hundred at once.

Would for me.

Jeff Higgins · 08-05-2023, 05:11 PM

Does it work out? For everyone? Really?

The ticket itself was $200. That's not "money" to me. Even less so to the majority of folks I meet in our hobby. It is, however, very real money to some single mom with several kids working two jobs and driving some 40 year old beater. The difference in impact in my life vs. hers is very real, and quite unjust.

It's a bad system. It really is. There should be a more just, more fair, more equitable way.

They want me to change my behavior. Nothing in this current system will ever entice me to do so. What I was doing was not unsafe in any way, shape, or form. I was on a motorcycle on a perfectly straight, flat stretch of open road with unobstructed visibility for a couple of miles. No driveways, no cross streets, way out in the country, with absolutely nothing around. The speed limit there is beyond ludicrous. Enforcement of it only serves to breed disrespect and disdain for the officers tasked with doing so, and for the system that supports them. The limits are set so low not as any sort of a safety measure, but purely because it's "easy money" for the county. Shameful.

Some states have what is known as an "average speed" or "prevailing speed" law. Under these laws, the speed limits are set to an "85%" rule. Speed limit signs are removed and traffic is monitored for some period of time. Remarkably, most of us prefer to drive safely, at a speed we are comfortable with on any given stretch of road. The theory is that 85% of us will always do so, driving at a speed at which we feel safe. That data is collected, and the limit set accordingly.

Not in Washington. We have had several "pilot projects" under which speed limits in the area under study were set in this manner. Traffic flow improved markedly, and the accident rates actually went down as the speed limits in each and every study area were increased. Some by as much as 15-20 mph.

But, alas, in the end the limits on these roads were ultimately reduced to their pre-study levels. Traffic returned to its pre-study gridlock, accident rates increased. In each and every case. It's frustrating. If we had realistic, reasonable speed limits on these roads, I would have little to complain about. But having our limits consistently 10, 15, 20 mph lower than similar roads in other states (or countries) is pretty tough to justify.

Unless, of course, all they really want is our money...

Superman · 08-06-2023, 04:50 AM

Preponderance of the evidence is the legal yardstick for all civil offenses, everywhere in the US, as far as I know. This translates to "more likely than not." Beyond a reasonable doubt is only used for crimes, I think. Traffic law enforcement would be basically impossible if this standard were used.

Speed is a real thing, as we know. 60 mph is 80 ft/sec. When three tons are moving that fast, we have what is called "inertia."

In my view, people who follow less than one vehicle length behind another car at 70 mph just simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND physics and should not be operating a motor vehicle.

But I agree with Jeff here. Again. I have loved the art of driving since before I got my license. I know where the other vehicles are, at all times. I watch them. I have an escape plan, always. I leave responsible following distances. I avoid stupid people. There are a LOT of stupid people. A LOT.

And I exceed the speed limit almost always.

Our state patrol used to cite motorists on only 30% of stops. On all stops, they tried to educate. Their goal was public safety. This does not seem to be their goal now. When a brake light or tail light goes out on a car that only has two, then that car is only one small filament away from having none. Brake and tail lights are a redundancy. If law enforcement were to return to a public safety goal, then tickets would be issued for non-speeding stuff that is dangerous. Rules would be followed. Motorists would be educated, and this would help make their driving decisions more predictable.

Our public roads are a friggin' free-for-all. A great many drivers are failing to follow the rules. We all depend, for our safety, on the behavior of others. Not following basic traffic rules is dangerous. It means we never know what that other driver is going to do. Surprises everywhere. It's scary. I really don't like to drive much these days. Every time I go out, I see VERY stupid decisions being made.

I do have what I feel is a good idea for revenue that could help support law enforcement and/or transportation infrastructure: When I was commuting Auburn to Lynnwood and back each week day, I payed attention to what proportion of vehicles used the HOV lane with no passenger. About 30%. This made sense to them. The likelihood of getting caught was low. The fine is not expensive when you consider it to be a fee to use the HOV lane and save yourself several hours a week. While I recognize and understand this logic, I think those people are thieves. They think they are clever. I think they are dishonest cheaters. They are making a conscious decision to take something, unlawfully, that does not belong to them. They see law-abiding citizens as "suckers."

I think the fine for HOV violations should be $5000. In all those cases, LE could meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of evidence. Either there is one person in the car or there is more than one. Integer math. I wish they would do this. I hate bullies and I hate cheaters. Those behaviors should be painful.

Superman · 08-06-2023, 04:54 AM

To paraphrase Walter Sobchak, "....this is not 'Nam, this is driving. There are rules."

cstreit · cstreit's Garage

In the end I think we know what they most want is the money for the fine rather than educating of any notion of safety outside certain circumstances.

From what I've seen - the lawyer will offer the state the money without the fine/record. That often works.

Zeke · 08-06-2023, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Does it work out? For everyone? Really?

The ticket itself was $200. That's not "money" to me. Even less so to the majority of folks I meet in our hobby. It is, however, very real money to some single mom with several kids working two jobs and driving some 40 year old beater. The difference in impact in my life vs. hers is very real, and quite unjust.

It's a bad system. It really is. There should be a more just, more fair, more equitable way.

They want me to change my behavior. Nothing in this current system will ever entice me to do so. What I was doing was not unsafe in any way, shape, or form. I was on a motorcycle on a perfectly straight, flat stretch of open road with unobstructed visibility for a couple of miles. No driveways, no cross streets, way out in the country, with absolutely nothing around. The speed limit there is beyond ludicrous. Enforcement of it only serves to breed disrespect and disdain for the officers tasked with doing so, and for the system that supports them. The limits are set so low not as any sort of a safety measure, but purely because it's "easy money" for the county. Shameful.

Some states have what is known as an "average speed" or "prevailing speed" law. Under these laws, the speed limits are set to an "85%" rule. Speed limit signs are removed and traffic is monitored for some period of time. Remarkably, most of us prefer to drive safely, at a speed we are comfortable with on any given stretch of road. The theory is that 85% of us will always do so, driving at a speed at which we feel safe. That data is collected, and the limit set accordingly.

Not in Washington. We have had several "pilot projects" under which speed limits in the area under study were set in this manner. Traffic flow improved markedly, and the accident rates actually went down as the speed limits in each and every study area were increased. Some by as much as 15-20 mph.

But, alas, in the end the limits on these roads were ultimately reduced to their pre-study levels. Traffic returned to its pre-study gridlock, accident rates increased. In each and every case. It's frustrating. If we had realistic, reasonable speed limits on these roads, I would have little to complain about. But having our limits consistently 10, 15, 20 mph lower than similar roads in other states (or countries) is pretty tough to justify.

Unless, of course, all they really want is our money...

Whatever. You have to realize neither you nor I are normal people. But I do know when my wallet is getting a hit.

Your example of the country road is an exception to why there are speed limits. It doesn't apply to the usual ticket and a fine to make an imprint on your behavior. I was speaking of the usual situation. Indirect punishment is not useful IMHO.

Arizona_928 · 08-06-2023, 10:36 AM

If le was to educate instead of their current mode of qualified immunity....

I wonder if the "defund the police " movement would have been so poplar.....

Sadly there's such discrepancies between reality and ideology that requires these services to exist.

Jeff Higgins · 08-06-2023, 05:38 PM

I have worked and driven in countries with either no speed limits, or speed limits set so high as to be a real challenge to beat, outside of their town and city limits. Speed limits enforced vigorously within town and city limits, with no enforcement whatsoever outside of those limits.

Their accident rates are lower than ours. Even on far, far narrower roads, with tighter, often unsighted corners and steeper unsighted hills. They drive much faster on those roads than we are allowed to drive on our much more open, flowing, wide, gently curving, well sighted roads. And their accident rates are lower than ours.

I do not speed in town, on the freeways, or in any sort of populated, congested area. I agree that we need enforcement in those areas. The more populated and congested the more enforcement. I'm all for that.

Yet that is not what we see. We see the heaviest enforcement where and when folks are actually comfortable speeding. I saw a great example just this morning - Sunday morning - a state trooper with his LASER gun out on a freeway overpass on I-5 going into Seattle. It was 6:00 am. The freeway was almost completely empty. What better time to ramp it up a notch and make some time? As safe as it will ever get. Yet there was our trooper. Because he really doesn't give a flying fking hairy rat's ass about safety. He knows full well that it's safe to "speed" at that hour, and that people feel comfortable doing so. He's nowhere to be seen during rush hour on Monday, when the really dangerous jackasses are weaving in and out of traffic, tailgating, cutting people off, and other behaviors that actually do lead to collisions.

And, yeah, back to my backroad. Similar roads, but narrower, with sharper corners, lined with stone fences and hedgerows in other countries would have the limit set by road type at 60 mph. I have personally followed the school bus on this road at over 50 mph. Yet the limit is set to 35 mph. There is only one reason it's set so low, and that reason has nothing to do with safety.

Arizona_928 · 08-06-2023, 07:03 PM

In AZ. The state troopers have quotas for pull overs. It's expected to ticket.

wdfifteen · wdfifteen's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

The ticket itself was $200. That's not "money" to me. Even less so to the majority of folks I meet in our hobby. It is, however, very real money to some single mom with several kids working two jobs and driving some 40 year old beater. The difference in impact in my life vs. hers is very real, and quite unjust.

It's a bad system. It really is. There should be a more just, more fair, more equitable way.

I agree.
As Zeke said, if your wallet "stings" it can be a deterrent, but everyone has a different level at which the sting begins to hurt.
Maybe fines based on an person's income would be more fair. It might lead to a decrease in revenue though. Gotta pay them cops somehow.

rwest · rwest's Garage

A quick google search shows that in he U.K. fines are based on a percentage of your weekly income.

This kind of makes the fine sting for someone with a higher income too, except at a certain income level you can take away a lot of someone’s money, but they still easily have enough to continue living like they always have, where if you take $50 from a poor person they may have to skip a few meals.

Jeff Higgins · 08-07-2023, 07:31 AM

The UK is an example of where speed limits are set by road type. "Motorways" (our "freeways") and "dual carriageways" (our divided highways) are 70 mph. "Single carriageways" (our two lane roads) are 60 mph. Single carriageways with street lighting, found in built up areas, are 30 mph. Very simple and straightforward. They don't even really need signs in many areas.

The fatality rate in motor vehicle accidents in 2018 was 27.7 per million population for the UK. The US was 112.3. Over four times. And our authorities keep telling us our extremely high rate is mostly "speed related".

Supe touched on an important point - here in Washington (and I suspect elsewhere), our traffic violations are divided into two categories - "criminal" (DUI and other "serious" offenses) and "civil" (speeding and other less "serious" offenses). This distinction was established in Washington in the 1980's when, as Supe mentions, it became obvious that it was well neigh impossible to prove, under the criminal burden of proof, any sort of a traffic violation.

So, under the "civil" level of evidence, we have "preponderance of evidence". That means "51%", whatever that can be quantified as. This is meant to be used, as the name implies, in civil court, where the judge or jury has to make a decision between two disputing parties. It was never meant to be used when the state is accusing a citizen of wrongdoing.

The courts have bastardized this "preponderance" to now being no more than an officer saying "yessir, Ah seem 'im do it...". There is absolutely no defense. The citizen's word against the officer's, with the officer's carrying preponderance. The only way to "beat" a ticket in this modern system is to find some technicality in which the officer failed. "Evidence" doesn't mean a goddamned thing.

This has to change. If an agent of the state has the audacity to accuse a citizen of any level of wrongdoing, there should be some substantial level of burden placed upon the state to prove it. To our fellow citizens (a jury), not to itself (a money grubbing traffic court judge). This system is broken. This is not how it is supposed to work in America.

Ayles · 08-07-2023, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

A buddy of mine recently turned me onto this service, and app-based traffic attorney locator and hiring kind of thing. Supposed to be pretty simple - just take a photo of your ticket and submit via their app. They handle everything else, claiming a 97% "success" rate. Money back guarantee. Sounds too good to be true. This guy found out that it is... Have any of you used it? How did it work out for you?

We talked about this last time we hung out! I think the apps are fine but I still think it's better to find your regional expert like Jeannie Mucklestone or Jag Matto for us.

Jeff Higgins · 08-07-2023, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ayles

We talked about this last time we hung out! I think the apps are fine but I still think it's better to find your regional expert like Jeannie Mucklestone or Jag Matto for us.

Yup, and we are in agreement. Nothing beats local expertise. Especially in courts like that in Snohomish County.

offtherecord.com's only real "strategy" appears to be hoping the officer doesn't show up in court. I know that works in many jurisdictions. Just not in Snohomish County. They always show up. They are paid to do so, and the court accommodates their schedules. Jeannie knows that, and knows that hoping they won't show is simply not an option. She's worth every penny.

sc_rufctr · 08-07-2023, 07:03 PM

(I watched the video)

There's nothing new here... Shyster lawyers finding another way to extract money from someone (Not all lawyers are Shysters). Meanwhile, the lawyers who shows up in court are obviously US based but I'd bet the company "offtherecord" are using lawyers qualified in US law based in India.

The only takeaway here... Stop speeding.

An idiot I've known for years used an Indian based lawyer to negotiate his post divorce property settlement.... And right now his ex wife is living in the home they built together (No children. Married 4 years).

rwest · rwest's Garage

I know the answer is stupidity, it’s always stupidity, but it amazes me when you see someone with out of state plates driving much, much faster than the locals.

Probably a safe bet that the locals are going at a speed that they know won’t get them pulled over and it would be wise to stay with the flow.

Also going to be a massive headache if you live out of state and you get a ticket that will require you to show up for a court date at a later time. Not to mention that the local Leo probably won’t be taking it easy on an out of stater.

sugarwood · sugarwood's Garage

App seems like a pointless middleman.
Just find a local DWI lawyer popular in the town you are ticketed in.
Maybe this app makes sense for out of state tickets?