[golfhobo]

Originally Posted by Kevin0915

again, like the college exam....not relevant.

I disagree. I believe it IS relevant. (and a very good point!)

Courts are federal, state or other and as such are on a par with the "testimony" one is about to give on a log sheet.

No one asks you to SIGN your testimony after you give it in court. You have already sworn that it is/will be true. This is very much like signing the logsheet in advance to "swear" that you will only make true and complete entries.

Again, I still believe in signing it AFTER all entries are complete.... but, you can't argue with Repete's logic. :thumbsup:

[Kevin0915]

Originally Posted by golfhobo

I disagree. I believe it IS relevant. (and a very good point!)

Courts are federal, state or other and as such are on a par with the "testimony" one is about to give on a log sheet.

No one asks you to SIGN your testimony after you give it in court. You have already sworn that it is/will be true. This is very much like signing the logsheet in advance to "swear" that you will only make true and complete entries.

Again, I still believe in signing it AFTER all entries are complete.... but, you can't argue with Repete's logic. :thumbsup:

incorrect. When you give a sworn statement of fact, an affidavit, you sign it AFTERWARDS. When you give live testimony in open court, you 'swear to tell the truth, blah blah blah...' beforehand, yes. But any testimony you give in court that is on paper, is signed afterwards.

[golfhobo]

Originally Posted by Kevin0915

incorrect. When you give a sworn statement of fact, an affidavit, you sign it AFTERWARDS. When you give live testimony in open court, you 'swear to tell the truth, blah blah blah...' beforehand, yes. But any testimony you give in court that is on paper, is signed afterwards.

I have given sworn testimony in court several times. It was NEVER on "paper." I NEVER signed anything afterwards.

As "professional" drivers, we are required to fill out an ROD. It is incumbent on us that we will make only "truthful" entries. It is also required that, before that ROD is submitted to our company and the DOT, that we sign it to attest to it's validity. I see nothing in the regs that specifies the time that we should sign it, nor anything that relieves us of any liability if we DON'T!

The regulations are at times VERY vague, Kevin. We can argue about specifics all we want, but the "spirit" of the law is what is important. :lol2:

On the other hand.... the regs say that ANY method of correction is allowed on our logs. This begs the question that we might make a mistake concerning an entry, especially for those of us who cross many time zones (and especially those who change their watches to reflect local time.) It is even allowable for a company to return a logsheet to us FOR "correction" before it is submitted.

This is why I mentioned that I was supportive of the idea that we should be able to make CHANGES to our logs, as long as the effort was there to keep them current, EVEN in the face of a roadside inspection, whether we have signed the log or NOT!

I don't believe that states should be able to generate revenue off of a simple mistake made by a driver that cannot be substantiated as a CLEAR violation of the HOS rules.

But, as I stated, the DOT doesn't think that way.

[danske]

My last company had a place on the log sheet for you to sign showing that this was your log sheet and this was your hand writing; you signed this at the beginning of the day. There was another place to sign that stated entries were true and correct; you signed this at the end of the day. It also had a 8 day recap on the sheet which I found very convenient.

My current company just has the one place to sign that the entries are true and correct. I complete that at the end of the day. I have had a number of level 1 and 3 inspections, and couple traffic stops :-( with this company; officer never said a thing about my not having signed it.

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by golfhobo

The regulations are at times VERY vague, Kevin. We can argue about specifics all we want, but the "spirit" of the law is what is important.

No, the precedent set by judges' interpretation of the regulation is what is important. Your interpretation of the "spirit" of the regulations is completely and utterly irrelevant. Unless, of course, you've recently been made a judge.

As such, the "layperson" can only go based upon past precedent, or the specific wording of the regulations themselves. To do otherwise is setting up for disaster.

I would love to see a defendant go into court and try to argue with the judge about the "spirit" of the regulation.

[golfhobo]

Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago

No, the precedent set by judges' interpretation of the regulation is what is important. Your interpretation of the "spirit" of the regulations is completely and utterly irrelevant. Unless, of course, you've recently been made a judge.

As such, the "layperson" can only go based upon past precedent, or the specific wording of the regulations themselves. To do otherwise is setting up for disaster.

I would love to see a defendant go into court and try to argue with the judge about the "spirit" of the regulation.

There are many vagarities and inconsistencies in the regs. I can think of several situations where a "spirit" defense, or one based on conflicting/vague regs COULD be successful.

If I ever find myself in that situation, I will be sure to invite you to the trial!

BTW, one wouldn't be arguing with the JUDGE about the law. One would be arguing with the D.A. and perhaps the "precedents." I have read MANY rulings by judges who decided that the precedent was either wrongly decided or inapplicable to the case.

Precedents are useful but not compulsive. The great thing about our judicial system is that EACH case MUST be "judged" based on the merits of that case.

The Annenberg letter makes several references to what could be considered the "spirit" of the regs. By doing so, she has opened the door to using that as a defense.

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by golfhobo

There are many vagarities and inconsistencies in the regs. I can think of several situations where a "spirit" defense, or one based on conflicting/vague regs COULD be successful.

Please cite one example where it has been used successfully.

[golfhobo]

Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago

Please cite one example where it has been used successfully.

I don't really have the time, Rev. I never SAID that I could cite a reference. I said I could THINK of some scenarios where it COULD be used.

Are you EVER going to learn how to READ and comprehend? :hellno:

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by golfhobo

I don't really have the time, Rev. I never SAID that I could cite a reference. I said I could THINK of some scenarios where it COULD be used.

Are you EVER going to learn how to READ and comprehend? :hellno:

I can think of scenarios where I can fly and walk through walls. That doesn't mean it will actually ever happen.

[golfhobo]

Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago

I can think of scenarios where I can fly and walk through walls. That doesn't mean it will actually ever happen.

I was WONDERING who had all the good drugs these days. Now I know.