speeding at 19

[ccbro]

Can you get a prayer for judgement from the DA for a speeding 80 in a 55 if you do not have an attorney?

 

[Scooterdog]

No, the "DA" isn't a judge.

 

[irish223]

ccbro, please ignore scooterdog's insensitive reply. The following information can be found at the link preceding it, and the links at the end of each message may provide more helpful information. Sounds like you can talk to the DA without a lawyer if you want to try to have the violation lowered. Hopefully, one of the lawyers on this site will reply with more useful information for you.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=251894

Being a North Carolinian myself and having
gone through speeding tickets and having a Prayer for Judgement (PJC)
I hope I can help you with your needs.

A "Prayer for Judgement" citation means that the court reserves the
right to pass judgement later. The driver is charged the cost of
court, no decision is rendered, and no points are assigned (except for
a third Prayer Judgement citation within five years.) The judge can
come back and finalize the citation later. A household can use on PJC
as long as no-one else has used a PJC in the last three years. If
another violation occurs in the 3 years a PJC is on your record, both
violations (and related points) get placed on your driving record.
Getting a PJC will depend on the judge and the violation. When I
received mine, I spoke with the DA and had the speed lowered to 9 mph
over the speed limit. I later learned that NC DMV regulations state
that at 9 or less over the speed limit, there are no drivers license
points.

I am not a lawyer and this answer does not constitute legal advice.
If you need any additional clarification, please let me know.
Regards,
-THV
Search Strategy:
"Prayer for judgement" North Carolina speeding
PJC North Carolina
References:
THE HIGH (and hidden) COSTS OF TRAFFIC TICKETS
http://www.plylerlaw.com/in.html
A Partial List of MVR Related Terms - Sorted by State
http://www.iix.com/support/iix/mvrstuff/state.htm

Subject: Re: Prayer for judgement
From: magnesium-ga on 03 Sep 2003 18:09 PDT
This might help:

What is a Prayer for Judgment Continuance (PJC)?
"PJC" stands for Prayer for Judgment Continuance. It is a judge-made
remedy, available in some cases to suspend indefinitely the court's
judgment in a case. In most traffic cases, a PJC is not a conviction
and will not result in an increase in automobile insurance premiums.
It is important to remember two sets of rules when contemplating the
request: the rules of the Division of Motor Vehicles and the rules of
your insurance company. Typically, the North Carolina Division of
Motor Vehicles is going to disregard a third or subsequent PJC in a
five year period. In other words, if you already have two PJCs and you
get another, it will be ignored by the DMV and your record will
reflect a conviction for the charge on which you were granted the PJC.
Also, remember that insurance companies will only "honor" a single PJC
in a three-year period, pursuant to a North Carolina General Statute
commonly referred to as the Safe Driver Incentive Plan.
http://www.ncspeeder.com/html/faq.html

 

[lwpat]

The only way to know is to go in and talk to the DA prior to your court date. This will give you time to retain an attorney if he will not negotiate. You can find more information at

North Carolina Speeding Ticket

 

[Scooterdog]

A "Prayer for Judgement" citation means that the court reserves the
right to pass judgement later. The driver is charged the cost of
court, no decision is rendered,

What is a Prayer for Judgment Continuance (PJC)?
"PJC" stands for Prayer for Judgment Continuance. It is a judge-made
remedy, available in some cases to suspend indefinitely the court's
judgment in a case.

If you talk to the DA, you in all probability will be adding to the investigation. God help you if you walk in an admit to anything. Never the less, you still must file this "pjc" with the court, and the judge will determine if you get it or not.

I don't understand all this talk on this site of people, being so damn reckless and neglegent, as to tell people to talk to a prosecutor or a cop.

"You have the right to remain silent": In other words, don't talk to the people prosecuting you. They are not there to help! Their job is to get a conviction, the little court house can't run without your funds feeding the blood suckers.

"Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law": If you talk to that prosecutor, you just gave up some of these.

Personally, if you have 20 days, I would simply default the prosecutor in the case. Although some on here will tell you it can't be done, they just don't have a clue.

But, if you feel this charge is worth filing a pjc or what ever, then do that. This is just my opinion, but it would appear as though you might want to save that pjc for something more criticle.

Motorists are known to ignore speed limits, according to the RDU's reference
to a "Federal Study on Effects Of Raising And Lowering Speed Limits" (posted at the RDU
website). See also pertinent statistical data at the Michigan section of the National Motorists
Association. However inarticulately, motorists in essence already recognize that speed limits
are inherently (always) unconstitutional, i.e., non-fact-based.

The concept of striking down the general vague rules is still alive and well and being used. That concept was used as recently as in State of Montana v Stanko, Case No. 97-486; 1998 MT 321; 292 Mont 192; 974 P2d 1132 (23Dec 1998) (declaring the basic speed law vague and thus unconstitutional); State of Montana v Stanko, Case No. 98-049, 1998 MT 324N (24 Dec 1998); and State of Montana v Leuchtman, Case No. 97-134. 1998 MT 325N (30 Dec 1998) (giving the benefit of the Stanko decision to the next litigant on the same issue). Note that the officer did not even pretend to be following the law's criteria on factors such as vehicle condition. This is an obvious violation of one's oath of office, to respect the constitution and laws, not flout them.

In Montana, when its unconstitutional system was repeatedly struck down in court, the legislators did the right thing, decided to stop passing unconstitutional laws. . . . . In your dreams! . . . . . . No, not a chance of that! Instead they passed a new law, an invented number.

Legislators do include some uneducated, evil, sadistic, and malicious people. Since the early vague speed-related laws were struck down, legislators have resolved on a different approach. We'll call it the Galileo approach. Invent a law that says the earth is flat! Invent a law that is not consistent with nature. Invent a number! Throw darts at a board, and say "that's the speed limit!!" Amazingly, all the darts seem to end on numbers ending with a 0 or a 5!! Call this "reasonable". As the range of numbers in nature is different than that, the arbitrary and capricious invented numbers are thus unconstitutional on their face! The Galileo defense.

Federal law, Chapter 23 USC, controls traffic enforcement on all federal and federally-funded highways. Pursuant to that law, there is a federal Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) (written by the Federal Highway Administration (HHS-10), 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590). The MUTCD sets conditions precedent for traffic control. It bans the old politically-manipulated speed-limit setting system. Now engineering studies are required. The federal law requires states and local authorities to identify pre-existing problems, do valid engineering studies, and only impose that minimal amount of traffic control as solves the pre-identified problem, without causing any new problem nor safety impairment. To date, no traffic control on freeways is known to have been imposed pursuant to these MUTCD conditions precedent requirements.

As such, fabricated speed limits without scientific and engineering evidence are definitely unconstitutional. The Constitution requires due process, proof, evidence, prior to
convicting somebody. There is no proof, no evidence, that some particular "posted" speed limit is actually correct as the "true" necessary maximum number. The Constitution
says—prove it. Or there is no case.

What the evidence actually shows is that the numbers are simply made up, like the hallucinations of an alcoholic with delirium tremens seeing pink elephants so to speak. One easy proof that speed limit numbers are made up, is the fact they are repeatedly being changed, and vary wildly between jurisdictions, and all end in 0's and 5's, grossly contrary to nature. The Galileo defense again.

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; creates no office. It is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton v Shelby County, Tennessee, 118 US 425, 442; 6 S Ct 1121; 30 L Ed 178 (1886).