Dave VonTesmar of Phoenix has a novel defense to a series of speeding tickets: I am not the monkey in that picture and you cannot prove that I am.
“Someone” driving VonTesmar’s car has been racking up dozens of speeding tickets while wearing monkey and giraffe masks. Yet, VonTesmar insists that “You’ve got to identify the driver, and if you can’t it’s not a valid ticket.”
Police want him to pay $6,700 after serving him with 37 tickets — supplying pictures of a masked man driving his white Subaru with black-and-white checkered racing stickers on its sides and a sticker on the windshield that reads “Bucktooth Racin’.”
VonTesmar insists that he is not a speeder but a patriot fighting the scourge of radar enforcement: “It’s a peaceful act of resistance — that’s what this country was founded on.”
He may have a case. It is a well documented fact that animals often do drive and drive poorly:
Moreover, while we have been exploring the possibility of cats framing humans, this may be a case of a monkey-human frame job.
For the full story, click here.
14 thoughts on “Monkey Business: Arizona Man Hit with Dozens of Tickets as Mysterious Speeding Monkey”
Kinda Off Topic . . .
American Family Insurance will lower your auto insurance if you allow them to spy on you via wireless web cam.
Anyone thing insurance companies are your friend still? Or that they are in business to look out for your best interests?
You know, none of this would have been possible without the ground breaking, glass ceiling shattering work of Chim Chim, the loyal monkey compatriot to the Racer family.
And as you can see, there is precedent for his escaping the law too . . .
Loved Groundhog Day, thanks for the vid. But who can forget Toonces when the discussion turns to non-primate drivers? (Rejoice ye olde SNL fans!)
A serious contender for the Alpha Dog of the Week Award!
I assume precedent shields him if someone is photographed wearing a dog mask.
What Margarita and Tim in SF said.
Anywhere one has to plead guilty or not guilty, the prosecution carries the burden on each and every issue necessary to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt.
A defendant need not put on any case at all, or can put on a case.
Either way, the prosecution has the burden and if they do not know who they are prosecuting (“who dunnit”), end of case.
The “fair” or not fair is a red herring, canard, straw man in our jurisprudence. Our jury system is based on the ideology that power corrupts, and the government is in power.
Therefore to protect rights down through time the burden is on the government, and the decision of guilt or innocence is on the people (symbolized by the jury).
“Dread: The trial court was unamused but the appellate court dismissed the case and in no uncertain terms told the prosecution not to bother to retry the case because they had no admissible evidence.”
This is true in nearly every case that makes it up to the appellate court. However, filing an appeal is an expensive and time-intensive process to fight a $300 ticket. That’s why more than 99% of ticketed motorists simply give up and send in the check.
Here are some articles on the automated enforcement sham that’s being sold to citizens under the cover of “safety” :
The monkey peals out.
Always thoroughly clean the steering wheel after any monkey borrows your car.
Dredd is correct that the car’s owner is not liable for someone else running a red light in their car, despite what the private company that the county contracts with to set up cameras may print on the ticket. Traffic violations are considered criminal offenses (albeit infractions) that come along with constitutional rights for the accused.
Liability for accidents is different. It’s civil liability, and the owner’s (limited) vicarious liability is based on the premise that it’s the owner’s responsibility for maintaining insurance on the car.
I tend to agree with the monkey man. Radar speed traps are a scourge. The legal system is already enough of a heartless, brainless meat grinder; law enforcement requires discretion.
May All Beings Be Happy!
I can see why the authorities have gone ape over this…
Don’t forget to tip your waiter.
“It’s a peaceful act of resistance — that’s what this country was founded on.”
Drive on, Monkey Man!
In all fairness do you still think that you would get the same result today?
If this same car was in an accident presuming you are not somehow responsible. Courts have extended the liability for this use, if the use was legitimate to begin with.
I do not know California Law but is it not more Plaintiff friendly?
It used to say, in California, on the back of the robot generated ticket that took a picture of someone running a red light, “If you were not the driver …”, and you were supposed to say who it was under oath and send it in.
I challenged on the ground that on of the requirements on the prosecution was to know who was being charged. This robo-ticket system attempted to shift the burden from the prosecution to the accused, and thereby violated several constitutional principles.
I also said it evinced a bias toward property owners who were left to bear the punishment for the wrongs of others, and argued that ownership of property is not punishable except in communist zones.
The trial court was unamused but the appellate court dismissed the case and in no uncertain terms told the prosecution not to bother to retry the case because they had no admissible evidence.
Now this is great. Humm, guess the owner of the vehicle is responsible in most states. sometimes you have to pay for the “mistales” of others.
Comments are closed.