Nov 18, 2009 20:35
Based on an item on the news todayyesterday:
State court tells guy he never paid a ticket in 1999 and that he will have to pay it, plus almsot $1k in interest/fines. Guy says not only did he pay it in 1999, but that he is especially irked because a few months after paying in 1999 he was told he hadn't paid and had to go back to court and show that he had indeed paid. Sadly he apparently decided after some years of not being gone after to stop looking after the financial records with a paranoid eye.
Which raises two questions for me.
1) Shouldn't there be record of his going back to court to show that it had been paid. And shouldn't this be something that can be used to quash the current claim?
2) Isn't it normally the one making a claim that is expected to prove it. "You never paid!" Should be answerable with, "Okay, produce the complete file, and explain why for a decade a supposedly unpaid claim wasn't pursued."
And additional bit, a DMV official on camera said with a straight face and without apparently thinking there was anything wrong with it, "When you pay your ticket, hold onto the proof." "For how long?" "I'd say forever."
Um. Yeah.
politics,
annoyances,
law