Resource Guide for Legal Problems Minnesota Crow Wing County
(https://mn.gov/law-library/assets/Crow%20Wing%20County_tcm1041-78736.pdf)
Application for Public Defender File with County Court Administration
http://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/CourtForms/PD-Application-Form-Aug-2012.pdf?ext=.pdf
Format for the Answer
https://www.northwestregisteredagent.com/pdf/Answer-Example.pdf
Rhetoric and the Law
https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1011&context=english_hontheses
Ambiguity and Misunderstanding the Law
http://idiom.ucsd.edu/~schane/law/ambiguity.pdf
Plausable Answers and Affirmative Defenses
https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1198&context=facsch
report of the R. statutes
https://www.leg.state.mn.us/docs/2010/mandated/101380.pdf
PLEA: A continuance for dismissal
Charge: 169.09.5 given on December, 29th 2018. The ticket was filed after the accident report to the police with in 24 hours they called my home to follow up. This then would be "reasonable" time frame to give a formal answer for a report. This court arraignment was processed January 9th 2019, after the crash and sent to 10722 Earl Drive N. Nisswa, Minnesota. This is a clear sign that the courts either made a mistake or foul play was involved.
Minnesota Statutes States:
Subd. 5.Notify owner of damaged property.
If the driver of any vehicle involved in a collision knows or has reason to know the collision resulted only in damage to fixtures legally upon or adjacent to a highway, the driver shall take reasonable steps to locate and notify the owner or person in charge of the property of that fact, of the driver's name and address, and of the registration plate number of the vehicle being driven and shall, upon request and if available, exhibit the driver's license, and make an accident report in every case. The report must be made in the same manner as a report made pursuant to subdivision 7.
Subd. 5a.Driver deemed agent of owner.
Whenever any motor vehicle shall be operated within this state, by any person other than the owner, with the consent of the owner, express or implied, the operator thereof shall in case of accident, be deemed the agent of the owner of such motor vehicle in the operation thereof.
(b) On determining that the original report of any driver of a vehicle involved in an accident of which report must be made as provided in this section is insufficient, the commissioner of public safety may require the driver to file supplementary information.
"Upon Request and If Available" - Conditional tenses are used to speculate about what could happen, what might have happened, and what we wish would happen. It is also the case of informal logic to connotative appropriation. It then is a "False Dilemma" states, "A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option. A false dilemma can arise intentionally, when a fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice or outcome." According to Sanford Schane, "I shall analyze three court cases claimed to contain "ambiguity" or "ambiguous words". 2 The claims are appropriate for the general meaning of these terms. Otherwise, the three cases of so-called "ambiguity" turn out to be quite different. One of them exemplifies the restricted meaning of ambiguity, whereas the other two present problems of reference and of vagueness." (Google, False dilemma, 2019).
"Upon Request and If Available" - Conditional tenses are used to speculate about what could happen, what might have happened, and what we wish would happen. It is also the case of informal logic to connotative appropriation. It then is a "False Dilemma" states, "A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option. A false dilemma can arise intentionally, when a fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice or outcome." According to Sanford Schane, "I shall analyze three court cases claimed to contain "ambiguity" or "ambiguous words". 2 The claims are appropriate for the general meaning of these terms. Otherwise, the three cases of so-called "ambiguity" turn out to be quite different. One of them exemplifies the restricted meaning of ambiguity, whereas the other two present problems of reference and of vagueness." (Google, False dilemma, 2019).
REBUTTAL to Statute 169.09.5 "Syntactic ambiguity" of the word "Reasonable"
Syntactical ambiguity is a structural or grammatical ambiguity of a whole sentence that occurs in a sub-part of a sentence (Reilly 1991; Walton 1996). Syntactical ambiguity is a grammatical construct, and results from the difficulty of applying universal grammatical laws to sentence structure. The rule of lenity (also called the rule of strict construction) is a principle of criminal statutory interpretation that requires a court to apply any unclear or ambiguous law in the manner most favorable to the defendant. My Strict Construction of the word "Reasonable" would be that of 24 hours to notify police due to no injury and that of only property. The term reasonable is a generic and relative one and applies to that which is appropriate for a particular situation. In the law of Negligence, the reasonable person standard is the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would observe under a given set of circumstances. Thus, if he wouldn't of called me I had plans on calling in the report the following day realizing the implications of it. (Google, Reasonable, 2019).
Syntactical ambiguity is a structural or grammatical ambiguity of a whole sentence that occurs in a sub-part of a sentence (Reilly 1991; Walton 1996). Syntactical ambiguity is a grammatical construct, and results from the difficulty of applying universal grammatical laws to sentence structure. The rule of lenity (also called the rule of strict construction) is a principle of criminal statutory interpretation that requires a court to apply any unclear or ambiguous law in the manner most favorable to the defendant. My Strict Construction of the word "Reasonable" would be that of 24 hours to notify police due to no injury and that of only property. The term reasonable is a generic and relative one and applies to that which is appropriate for a particular situation. In the law of Negligence, the reasonable person standard is the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would observe under a given set of circumstances. Thus, if he wouldn't of called me I had plans on calling in the report the following day realizing the implications of it. (Google, Reasonable, 2019).
We agree that the Minnesota No-Fault Act serves an important remedial purpose. But its remedial purpose is not relevant unless we conclude that Minn. Stat. § 169.09, subd. 5a, is ambiguous. Accordingly, we must first determine whether Minn.Stat. § 169.09, subd. 5a, and Minn.Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 5a(i)(2) are ambiguous as applied to the facts of this case. "A statute is only ambiguous when the language therein is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation." See Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d at 277 (citation omitted).
We have previously concluded in section B, supra, that section 65B.49, subd. 5a(i)(2) is not ambiguous, and therefore does not fall within the reach of section (b)(2). Thus, we must examine whether Minn. Stat. § 169.09, subd. 5a is ambiguous. It provides:
Whenever any motor vehicle shall be operated within this state, by any person other than the owner, with the consent of the owner, express or implied, the operator thereof shall in case of accident, be deemed the agent of the owner of such motor vehicle in the operation thereof."Reasonable time refers to the amount of time that is fairly required to do whatever is required to be done, conveniently under the permitted circumstances. Reasonable time. Reasonable time is that amount of time which is fairly necessary, conveniently, to do whatever is required to be done, as soon as circumstances permit. This phrase is a U.S. legal term that has been a topic of controversy for many years. Although the context may reduce or negate the ambiguity, syntactically the request is ambiguous." (Reasonable, google, 2019).
This statute has consistently been interpreted as creating vicarious liability as to vehicle owners when none existed at common law. See, e.g., Shuck v. Means,302 Minn. 93, 96, 226 N.W.2d 285, 287 (1974) (explaining that the purpose of Minn.Stat. § 170.54 (1974), now codified at Minn.Stat. § 169.09, subd. 5a, was to make vehicle owners liable when "no such liability would otherwise exist, giving ... injured persons more certainty of recovery by encouraging owners to obtain appropriate liability insurance"); see also Kangas v. Winquist, 207 Minn. 315, 316-17, 291 N.W. 292, 293 (1940) (explaining that the purpose of 3 Mason Minn. St.1938 Supp. § 2720-104, now codified at Minn.Stat. § 169.09, subd. 5a, was to impose vicarious liability on vehicle owners for the tortious acts of permissive drivers).
(101380 pdf, Meyer v. Nwokedi, 777 N.W.2d 218 (Minn. 2010).Google Statutes, 2019).
(101380 pdf, Meyer v. Nwokedi, 777 N.W.2d 218 (Minn. 2010).Google Statutes, 2019).
Description of the case: Personal Testimony
I recently was in an accident on the 26th of December 2018 right after the snow storm m car was filled with condensation on the inside of the vehicle. My sight was limited as the window was fogging up even with the defrost on. My car struck the median which in turn ran over the sign on the median of the road.
After, hitting the sign I knew I was okay and, didn't report the accident right a way. My intention was to report it once I got home but, was side tracked and forgot. This is the classic "Unforeseen Circumstances" that led to the incident.
My ticket given for “Failure to Report Accident” on December 27th 2019. The conditions of the road were poor along with my visibility and interior window was covered in frost. My intent that night was to go to the Baxter Target CVS Pharmacy and pick up my prescription.
As a result, of the conditions of the roads and my vehicle I hit a sign on the road at the intersection of Wise Road and 371. My intent was not that to hit the sign, I simply had a “Mistake of Law” that my genuine intention was that to just pick up my medication. It was an unintentional accident that resulted in not calling the police right away. I wasn’t hurt at the scene of the Accident and, a citizen called it in. I had not malicious intent to cause property damage and was not out to hurt anyone or anything.
My motive wasn’t to escape the law but simply report it at a later time. Then, the next day the Baxter Police did follow up with me on the phone and we went over the accident and a report was filed. I didn’t intend to do something illegal and simply made a genuine mistake to report the crime. My Mental State was unclear; My ADHD was struggling because I was out of prescription, and had a unclear mind to focus.
I had causation to not make a crime intentional and I had no motive to break the law.
There is a correlation to the accident with inclement weather making conditions bad. I was in shock and, kept going because, I was on my way to pick up Prescription for my ADHD.
Mitigating Circumstances for this offense include but, are not limited:
1. Mental Health - ADHD played a role in the attention to the road
2. Lack of a poor criminal record - No major Violations (i.e. Felony). The defendant doesn’t have a criminal record, or only has a relatively minor record.
3. Unusual Circumstance - The defendant committed the crime because of temporary emotional difficulty or significant provocation.
4. The Crime was an accident; and had proper road conditions and car conditions the accident wouldn't of happened.
5. No harm. The defendant didn’t hurt anyone and committed the crime in a manner unlikely to cause harm.
6. History of Abuse The defendant has a testimony that would make you use 100 Kleenex boxes.
7. Difficult Personal History The defendant has a relationship with a government worker "Classified"
37 Mitigating Factors you can use
The Thinking Advocate's List of Mitigating Factors
514 10th Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004
Tel. 202.628.1091
staff@sentencingproject.org
www.sentencingproject.org
A Theory to Consider based on Torts
This is taken from the above "A Theory to Consider based on Torts"
"The court’s decision to relieve a negligent tortfeasor of liability is highly fact-intensive and varies from case to case. However, it may be helpful to list several of the most common cases on either side of this doctrine, in order to gauge how a court might interpret a certain set of facts."
100 Reasons for Affirmative Defense's
Explanation of Affirmative Defense's
100 Reasons for Affirmative Defense's
Explanation of Affirmative Defense's
MY DEFENSE:
"An intervening cause is an event that occurs after a tort feasor's initial act of negligence and causes injury/harm to a victim. An intervening cause will generally absolve the tort feasor of liability for the victim's injury only if the event is deemed a superseding cause." (Intervening Cause, Google, 2019).
"A superseding cause is an unforeseeable intervening cause. By contrast, a foreseeable intervening cause typically does not break the chain of causality, meaning that the tort feasor is still responsible for the victim's injury—unless the event leads to an unforeseeable result." (Superseding cause, Google, 2019).
"An Accident is an unfortunate, unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance, usually resulting in an unfavorable outcome." (Accident, Google, 2019)
"In tort law, a defendant can only be held liable for injuring a plaintiff if the defendant’s negligence caused the plaintiff’s injuries. There must be a direct link between the negligent behavior and the injury so that the behavior is both the cause in fact and the proximate cause of the injury."
As a result, I did not injure the plaintiff as it was a road sign furthermore; I did have proximate cause in this circumstance. According to Wikipedia it states: "n law, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the cause of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate cause. "
(All taken from Google; Proximate cause, cause-in-fact, 2019).
EXAMPLE by http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/ What is Anecdotal Evidence....
What is an "intervening or superseding cause"?
Because causation must exist for the defendant to face liability, a defendant may argue that an intervening cause broke the link between the defendant’s behavior and the plaintiff’s injury. The intervening cause must occur between the defendant’s negligent act and the plaintiff’s injury, and it must have caused injury to the plaintiff.
For instance, suppose that a mechanic at an auto shop accidentally spills some gasoline in the parking lot, but he fails to clean it up. A customer walking across the parking lot flicks a lit cigarette butt, which hits the gasoline, resulting in a fire that burns the customer. The mechanic may raise the affirmative defense that the lit cigarette the customer dropped was an intervening cause that broke the chain between the mechanic’s spill and the customer’s burns.
The lit cigarette meets the definition of an intervening cause: it occurred between the mechanic’s spill and the customer’s burn injuries, and it caused the customer to be injured. However, the defendant will not be able to escape liability unless the intervening cause is also a superseding cause.
Like an intervening cause, a superseding cause occurs between the defendant’s action and the plaintiff’s injury, and it is also responsible for the injury. However, a superseding cause is also one that the defendant could not have reasonably foreseen.
In the example above, the mechanic may still be held liable for the customer’s injuries because a fire caused by the spilled gasoline was foreseeable. The mechanic could have reasonably foreseen that spilled gasoline might catch fire and injure anyone in the parking lot, including customers. Here, the lit cigarette is an intervening cause, but it is not a superseding cause.
By contrast, suppose that the customer flicked a lit cigarette near the gasoline spill, but was not burned by the flames. Instead, the customer is so startled by the sudden fire that he has a heart attack. Here, the lit cigarette is most likely a superseding cause of the injury, because the mechanic would not have reasonably foreseen that a gasoline spill would result in a heart attack.
To relieve the defendant of liability, the intervening or superseding cause must be unforeseeable in most cases. However, three exceptions exist. First, a foreseeable intervening cause may still eliminate the defendant’s liability if the intervening cause was an intentional tortor action by another party. For example, if the customer in the parking lot had deliberately dropped a match into the gasoline spill, the mechanic would not be liable for the resulting burn injures. Similarly, a criminal act may intervene to relieve the defendant of liability even if the crime was foreseeable.
Finally, a defendant may escape liability if a third person with the ability to fix the condition that will lead to injury sees the condition but does not fix it. For example, suppose that the manager of the garage sees the gasoline spill, but does not clean it up or have one of the garage’s employees clean it up. In this case, the manager, not the mechanic, may be liable for the defendant’s injuries. The manager may also be liable under a premises liability theory for failing to protect customers from dangerous conditions in the parking lot, such as gasoline puddles.
2. "Cause" and Effect Outcome of the Crash
The road conditions were bad and made visibility and driving conditions worse that impacted the accident to be unpreventable under unforeseen circumstances; not anticipated or predicted. Cause-in-effect; But for the action, the result would not have happened if the roads wouldn't of been icy and my window wouldn't of been fogged up. It is also known as legal cause; As a result then they must have; an essential condition; a thing that is absolutely necessary or "sine qua non". Mine was that of the road conditions, my mental state, and the vehicles conditions didn't allow for me to avoid the road sign. (Sine qua non, Google, 2019).
3. Mistake of Law's definition: "Mistake of law is a legal principle referring to one or more errors that were made by a person in understanding how the applicable law applied to their past activity that is under analysis by a court. In jurisdictions that use the term, it is differentiated from mistake of fact." I thought that you had 24 hours to report a crime or accident. (Mistake of Law, Google, 2019).
"Mistake of fact” generally refers to a mistaken understanding by someone as to the facts of a situation—the mistake results in the person committing an illegal act. Mistake of fact is a defense to a crime where the mistaken belief, if it were true, would negate a mental state that's an element of the crime." (Mistake of Fact, Google, 2019).
As a result, I was on the way to pick up my medication for my ADHD which does get in the way of my driving. I was cited a ticket in Bloomington for Speeding and this was due to my medication wearing off and not being cognizant to my speed. My mental state then would be under consideration to be a solid defense to hitting of the road sign.
The defense of mistake of law raises a issue. The first issue occurs where, because of a mistake of law, the defendant did not have the requisite intent to commit a crime. Thus, It was not my intent to hit the sign and thought that I could report it the next business day because I didn't have any injuries.
4. Causation - states, "n other words, causation provides a means of connecting conduct with a resulting effect, typically an injury. In criminal law, it is defined as the actus reus (an action) from which the specific injury or other effect arose and is combined with mens rea (a state of mind) to comprise the elements of guilt." (Causation, Google, 2019).
A. My state of mind was not solid as I could not focus on the road I ended up crashing into the sign. B. The road conditions were also a reason why the crash occurred.
C. The action then was the crash of the sign on the median that was struck due to mind/road complications.
Causation and Correlation
As a result, this proves, "correlation proves causation" is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy when two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship”. One wouldn’t have happened without the other. My lack to report the crime was a result of wanting to pick up my prescription before they closed to be properly medicated the next business day.
5. Defense of Necessity with the Affirmative Defense:
Defense of property is a justification defense by the defendant that s/he should not be held liable because the action was taken in defense of the defendant's premises or personal property.
The circumstances that caused the action were that of:
A. Bad road conditions
B. Bad visibility out of car
C. Not properly medicated "Mental State"
(Affirmative Defense Necessity, Google, 2019).
I should not be held liable for my actions as a crime because my conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm and when that conduct is not excused under some other more specific provision of law such as self defense because of these four reasons:
- I reasonably believed my actions were necessary to prevent imminent harm.
- There was no practical alternative available for avoiding the harm.
- I did not cause the threat of harm in the first place.
- The damage caused was less than the harm that would have occurred otherwise.
The three types are:
- Preponderance of evidence.
- Clear and convincing evidence.
- Beyond reasonable doubt. (Burden of Proof, Google, 2019).
As a Result:
