recieved max csa violation

Datq is effective if the charge is incorrect. His own admission is he had a restriction on his license, and he was operating outside of the restriction.

The why does not matter he was in violation. Then you people hold it up as proof the system does not work when in fact it worked perfectly. Was he in violation? Yes. Case friggin dismissed.

 

So far, I do not believe anyone has had much success with contesting these problems.

One of the reasons I had them put the restriction on my license this time. I want to have no headaches with them anymore. They could not understand why I wanted the restriction on the license, but did it anyway.

 

ummm, the charge is never incorrect. thus dataq being a joke. as a result. 4 lawsuits were filed and won. but still no dataq change.

as for the corrective lens. the license doesn't have a marking for contact lens or lasik. and there is no law that confines you strictly to corrective lenses only. corrective lenses would be defined as a mechanism to improve your eyesight. via corrective lenses or contact lenses.

therefor the system is faulty.

if you have corrective lenses marking on your license and you are wearing contact lens. you ahve that right. and the officer can't do anything about it.

you also have that right to lasik. and if a card or whatever is given as proof. then technically you have the vision and the marking on your license is worthless. and it would be best judgement to have it removed asap.

the rule states 20/40 vision or better. the rule doesn't say HOW it has to be done. thus the marking on the license. how it's done, is up to the person. and no officer can legally argue his ground. if he does. he has a lawsuit against him.

officers like to think they know the laws inside and out. but google will always be your friend. when i get a ticket. i look up the code. read the interpretation. and most often then not. there's an exmption written in the code. but, we don't all get the same type of tickets. it still worth looking into. cuz it beats taking a new bumhole.

 

You ever heard of Karma?

 

You make your own luck and karma despite the mystics claims.

 

Never disputed the fact he had the right to seek any medical treatment he wished and could afford to correct his vision. That right does not remove his responsibility to keep the information on his license current.

The facts:

His license had a restriction.
He was in violation of that restriction.
The Officer cited him for it.


There is no appeal presented by the OP disputing those simple facts. Dataq gave the supervisor a chance to review the claim. I would assume he looked at those facts and found his officer acted correctly. The system worked.

Not getting the answer you want does not necessarily mean the system did not work. You people have been indoctrinated into this belief that you are not responsible for your actions, and others shouldn't hold you accountable.

 

most of us aren't 100 percent perfect. and not everything needs to be accounted for.

 

Tazz hit it right on, Showing a letter means nothing, Hell!, i can go online a print up a letter saying i had lasik, keep ALL your records current, this encludes your licence, OP, you said you knew you where over on the weight?, do you have fixed axles?, why would you enter a scale like that?, why not have the issue fixed before entering the scale?, If this was done, this conversation would have never happened, Sorry, this is totally your fault, no one else to blame

 

So I just had my dot physical and it doesn't say I need corrective lenses but my license does. So now what. I had LASIK surgery 5 years ago. Do you think I can be cited. Also for that officer to be a jerk and make you go borrow someone else's glasses before he would to talk to him was humiliating and uncalled for.

 

Yes and yes.

Go get your license current.