False ticket sent by mail. Found guilty from the officers testimony... SCAM!

[welkin]

Do you honestly believe that there was no oncoming traffic for five miles?

That is not what the cop testified to. It was he who charged OP on behalf of himself not someone in oncoming traffic. The use of head lights statute is one of the least used citations issued in NJ because it is very hard for an officer to witness the violation effecting oncoming traffic.

 

[Zigner]

In fact it was never committed!

Unfortunately, the court felt otherwise.

 

[adjusterjack]

I would not rule out the possibility that a traffic court appeal results in a trial de novo (much like a small claims appeal in some states).

I should have mentioned that the NJ Municipal Court Appeals guide lists reasons for an appeal as:

• You believe the facts do not support the judge's decision; or
• You believe the judge's decision does not follow the law.

Which suggests that an appeal is not a trial de novo (do-over). Further, appellant has to pay for a transcript which would not be necessary in a trial de novo.

Municipal Court Appeals | NJ Courts

Guide for appealing a municipal court decision. Submit the necessary forms, pay fees, and meet deadlines. Ensure all documents are mailed correctly and contact the court or an attorney for assistance.

www.njcourts.gov

I actually clearly told the judge that he changed but she said that he testified again and she has his testimony...
It didn't look like she's trying to get the truth...
It's a piece of corruption!!!

It's more likely due to your inexperience in cross examining witnesses. The judge doesn't want your opinion as to the officer changing testimony. The judge wants to hear an admission from the officer that his testimony is tainted. That's called "impeaching testimony" which you were apparently unsuccessful at accomplishing.

And if I am wrong about that, remember, cash cow, cash collector.