If aquitted of any crime, why are civil penalities filed against you?
919853
Criminal law is to punish you, i.e., put you in jail, give ya probation w/e! Civil law is to get you to pay the person you harmed money for w/e you did! 7 times out of 10 the criminal aquital will be enough! Good luck!\n\nhttp://www.willyblues.com/
858241
Sure, you could file a civil suit.  If they've been convicted of the crime, you stand a better chance of winning the civil suit.
660307
Dear Friend,\n\nThe principal of legality applies as a defense to criminal prosecution.  Legality requires as necessary preconditions to criminal prosecution:  (1) that the act in question have been specifically prohibited by published criminal law, (2) that such prohibition was in effect before the alleged actions of the defendant, and (3) that the punishment sought was specifically provided for in that published prohibition.  If any of these preconditions are not met, the defendant cannot be prosecuted.  Due process requires that you at least have a chnace to know the laws with which you're supposed to comply.\n\nYour Friend,\nFrancesois
96256
Criminal prosecutions are handled by the government, so private individuals do not "sue" in criminal cases.  The simply request the government to file charges and the prosecutor decides whether or not criminal charges are warranted.  However, a person can be charged with a crime and sued privately for money damages by the victim.\n\nSuppose you have an employee that embezzled money from you.  This has actually happened to some of my clients.  The prosecutor could charge them with theft.  If convicted, the person might be put in jail and could also be ordered to pay restitution.  You could also sue and get a judgment for the stolen money, allowing you to go after the employee's assets.\n\nOnly the government can bring criminal chages, but that doesn't prevent you from bringing a civil suit.
471197
well, depends first on how you plead to the charge, is it for no insurance, or no proof of insurance? If you plead not guilty, then they cannot fine you until they've proven your guilt. In my experience I say take them all the way, fight it in court, things like that judges and courts don't want cluttering up their dockets and usually don't pursue any extreme measures to enforce a fine. My advice is to plead not guilty and take it all the way! even if you lose you're still in same boat as if you had plead guilty in the first place.
866117
A)  If you were convicted on the tickets, there isn't anything you can do.\n\nB) If they are still pending, get a lawyer\n\nC) Not speeding will certainly help you to keep it clean going forward.
952918
It's called being a public nuisance and obstructing traffic.  you can be ticketed and if you refuse to disburse you can be confined
1183998
None of the above are really correct.  There are three big differences between civil and criminal trials.  First of all, a criminal case is brought by the government, whereas a civil case can be brought by the government or a private person.  Second, the burden of proof is much higher in a criminal case: beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas the burden in a civil case is only proof by a majority of the evidence.  Third, a civil case can have a smaller jury and the jury can decide by a majority vote, whereas in a criminal trial the jury is of 12 people and has to be unanimous.  In short, the two kinds of trial have very different procedures and parties and so they can't be mixed.
119745
It is when you are not arrested for your alleged crime.  An officer writes you a ticket and allows you to return to court on your court date.  It all depends on your condition and your attitude if they will cite and release.
645567
This area of law is very complex and the following is only basic guidance. The law states that,\n\nAny person can arrest a person who is in the act of committing an indictable offence or \nAnyone whom he reasonably suspects to be committing such an offence, if \nit is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make the arrest instead and\nit is necessary to arrest the person for one of the below reasons,\nTo prevent the person in question,\n\ncausing physical injury to himself or any other person; \nsuffering physical injury; \ncausing loss of or damage to property; or \nmaking off before a constable can assume responsibility for him. \nThere a  few points to raise about the above paragraph.\n\nWhat is an indictable offence? \nHow do I know if I can make a citizens arrest? \n1. An indictable offence is an offence that can be tried at Crown Court. Below are examples of indictable offences which are the most likely to be encountered by members of the public,\n\ntheft \nburglary \ncriminal damage. \n2. You can make an arrest if the suspect is actually committing the offence or if you reasonably suspect them of committing it, or when the offence has been committed and you reasonably suspect them of having committed it. \n\nThere is no specific wording to use when making a citizens arrest. However you must inform the person you are arresting as soon as possible what you are doing, why you are doing it and what offence you believe the person has committed.\n\nThere are other considerations to make when making an arrest,\n\nreasonable force - see question in related information for details on reasonable force.\n\npotential for civil litigation - The courts are sympathetic to public spirited citizens and the exercise of their powers and rights. However, if you get it wrong you could be sued for unlawful arrest and/or false imprisonment. \nDo not make a citizens arrest if you feel that you would be putting yourself or any other person in danger, ring 999
354749
The word is "appeal" if you're convicted. Then write a book about it. It happens a lot. The main thing judges say is "ignorance of the law is not a defense to breaking the law." In front of a judge alone, you may be up the creek, but there's always a chance if you appeal to get a jury. Human Error is something jury's can relate to easily, we are all human after all.
53808
The term you are using is incorrect.  Crime belongs in criminal court.....civil violations belong in civil court.  They are two different things.\n\nA crime is punishable by the state or federal government by fines, jail, imprisonment.\n\nA civil violation is usually punished monatarily by a judge or jury due to the action being brought by the victim.\n\nI hope this helps.  Take care
481266
This is going to depend entirely on where you are, what court you're going to, and what sort of dispute is to be heard.  The rule it refers to is probably a rule of civil or criminal procedure.  (Civil is for lawsuits, generally speaking.)  You should check with local references to find out which, or you can try asking the clerk of court for an explanation.  For the rules themselves, you may be able to find them online at findlaw.com, if you can't find them anywhere else.\n\nFrom the way you phrase it, I would guess that, in a criminal proceeding, a Rule 8 hearing may involve the prosecution needing to show cause for charges it is bringing against someone (demonstrating it has at least some evidence to support its case) and -- if there is some evidence -- formally telling the accused the charges they face (like an arraignment).  That is totally a guess, though.
360691
Yes you can.\nIf your record is currently clean they may be talked into a fine and a dismissal of misdemeanor charges and a reduction to a civil infraction. But that is no guarantee.\nHope this helps.
266392
The violation of the contract would be a civil matter. If, however, there was fraud (as often is the case with some "contractors" after a disaster) then that would be a criminal matter.
1113615
You would have to present evidence that you were detained without probable cause in order to have a case. You don't need to prove beyond reasonable doubt, just a preponderence of the evidence as this is a civil matter. It's hard to tell precisely if you would have a case based on your details, but I would guess that you have an uphill climb if it boils down to your word versus theirs. It might be advisable to consult a lawyer about this, but only if you truly feel that this was a case of police abuse of power.
473104
just plead guilty by post. if you go to court they will fine you more because you have no defence. sorry mate