I know he is but how could the OP go and try to have her arrested for filing a false police report when he admitted to driving carelessly? ;)

He couldnt. Moral of the story is we didnt get the full story otherwise the OP woulda gotten off scott-free.

The hell are u talking about not getting the full story? i decided to take the path that was less bad for me. If i got found not guilty she could have still taken me to civil court so i took the option that keeps me from spending months dealing with court. id rather get a ticket than miss more class

I believe he means full story surrounding the actual incident.

and i belive he means... that he did give the "full story" and regardless he just doesnt want to "waste" his time dealing with this bs in cort through a civil suit... he'd rather take the ticket and squash it there..

i feel you to a certain extent... i wouldnt have time for that **** between school and work.. no way in hell i dont even have time for sleep.

I'm just curious, who came up with the idea for the civil suit protection if you admitted to careless driving? Your lawyer or hers, or even the prosecutor? It just seems odd that she would forgo any type of civil suit if she was really injured. Knowing you got 2pts out of it wouldn't heal my supposed injuries nor would it reimburse my out of pocket expenses.

Yeah not to mention I'm still awaiting the answers to the 3 or 4 questions I had after the "verdict" came in. Most importantly whether you actually got that "no civil suit promise" in writing...

Like I said from the beginning once your tickets were dismissed (which they would have been) no lawyer short of some sleezeball dumb ass (The guy from the simpsons comes to mind) would take that case because it had already been settled in municipal court that you werent at fault for what she blamed you for. A civil suit would have been redundant.

And further like I had said she woulda **** her pants and realized you werent some dumb idiot once she received the paperwork you would be counter suing. Hell I'm sure the legal letter announcing the intent to counter sue for court and lawyer costs, defamation of character, and lost wages for time in court wouldnt have even cost you $50 from a decent lawyer if you explained your story.

But ya know its your driving record, your prerogative, and your choice. The only reason it peeves me is because its just another legal precedent set that makes the "old and innocent" feel like theyre entitled to take unjust action against the "young and reckless".

But I'll drop it now.

he is not on trial here and this has no where to go but down, so /thread