How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Law Educator, Esq. Your Own Question
Law Educator, Esq.
Law Educator, Esq., Attorney
Category: Legal
Satisfied Customers: 116727
Experience:  JA Mentor -Attorney Labor/employment, corporate, sports law, admiralty/maritime and civil rights law
Type Your Legal Question Here...
Law Educator, Esq. is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

I'm in Tx and I was tried and convicted of non-jailable

Customer Question

I'm in Tx and I was tried and convicted of non-jailable traffic vciolations. what can this corporation do if choose not to pay? I've already paid for this service with a cc and this site seems to have lost the page where I paid
Submitted: 1 year ago.
Category: Legal
Expert:  Law Educator, Esq. replied 1 year ago.

Thank you for your question. I look forward to working with you to provide you the information you are seeking for educational purposes only.

You have only placed a deposit with the site, which is refundable. The experts are not employees of the site and until the customer leaves positive feedback the experts get no credit for spending time with customers.

If you choose not to pay then they will send everything in to Texas DOT and DMV will suspend your license for non-payment of the fines. You would then have to pay the fines and also to have your license reinstated.

If you believe you were improperly convicted, then you have the right to file an appeal which you do by filing a motion for a new trial together with a notice of appeal within 10 days of the conviction and the court can require you post an appeals bond of 2 times the amount due on the fine. The motion must state the grounds for the errors that give rise to the appeal and must be filed with the district court within 30 days of denial of new trial motion unless the court sets another date.

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
How can fines be assessed without due process of a trial. By definition the transportation code is for the regulation of commercial activities occurring on the highways, and concerns the people getting paid to conduct these activities. If you check the legal def. of ''driver'',''vehicle'',''transportaion'', you will find that these are commercial terms concerning persons that are getting paid to perform.
Expert:  Law Educator, Esq. replied 1 year ago.

Thank you for your reply.

These are arguments that sovereign citizens groups make, but regulation of driving on roads is a state function and they have a right to regulate those functions, even on commercial highways, as they are not preventing transportation, it is just regulation within their authority.

You went to court and you were convicted you said you were "tried and convicted" which is your due process rights.

The Supreme Court has recognized a protected right to interstate travel, Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489,500, 119 S.Ct. 1518, 143 L.Ed.2d 689 (1999), and the Sixth Circuit has recognized a protected right to intrastate travel, i.e., "aright to travel locally through public spaces and roadways,"Johnson v. City of Cincinnati, 310 F.3d 484, 494-98 (6th Cir. 2002).LULAC, 2004 WL(###) ###-####at *4. Yet, the district court held theprotected right to travel does not embody a right to a driver licenseor a right to a particular mode of transportation, citing Duncan v.Cone, 2000 WL(###) ###-####(6th Cir.) (unpublished) (holding "thereis no fundamental right to drive a motor vehicle."); John Doe No. 1 v. Georgia Dep't of Public Safety, 147 F.Supp.2d 1369, 1375(N.D.Ga.2001) (observing that "the Circuit Courts have uniformly held that burdens on a single mode of transportation do not implicate the right to interstate travel," and collecting cases). Further,the district court held that the right to travel, whatever its contours, is not infringed by Chapter 778 because a person who receives a certificate for driving is able to operate a motor vehicle just like a person who receives a driver license. Potential difficulties that may be experienced by one who does not have a driver license to use for identification purposes were held not to implicate the right to travel.

In Saenz, the Supreme Court identified three components of the right to travel: "It protects the right of a citizen of one State to enter and to leave another State, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than anunfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second State, and,for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens in that State." 526 500, 119 S.Ct. 1518.

A state law implicates the right to travel when it actually deters travel, when impeding travel is its primary objective, or when it uses a classification that serves to penalize the exercise of the right. Attorney General of New York v.Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898, 903, 106 S.Ct. 2317, 90 L.Ed.2d 899 (1986). Tennessee's issuance of certificates for driving, which confer all the same driving privileges as driver licenses, is clearly not designed primarily to impede travel and can hardly be said to deteror penalize travel. The state's denial of state-issued photograph identification to temporary resident aliens may arguably result in inconvenience, requiring the bearer of a certificate for driving to carry other personal identification papers, but this inconveniencecan hardly be said to deter or penalize travel. To the extent this inconvenience burdens exercise of the right to travel at all, theburden is incidental and negligible, insufficient to implicate denial of the right to travel. See Town of Southold v. Town of East Hampton,477 F.3d 38, 54 (2d Cir.2007) (collecting cases recognizing that evencitizens do not have a constitutional right to the most convenient form of travel). Something more than a negligible or minimal impacton the right to travel is required before strict scrutiny is applied.State of Kansas v. United States, 16 F.3d 436, 442 (D.C.Cir.1994).