Thursday, September 3, 2009


Well, the story of 029 (ie. previous blog post) concludes tragically with a negative outcome to the impound hearing. The hearing officer refused to reimburse me for the towing of my roommates car, stating that the police officer acted within the bounds of the law, and that just because I'm ignorant of the parking rule doesn't mean it's inapplicable or unenforceable.

I said, "YOUR MOM'S INAPPLICABLE!" then threw my Vitamin Water in his face, with my arm I pulled down all the papers on the counter, knocked over the flag pole, jumped on the metal detector conveyor belt and sang God Bless America at the top of my lungs.  No, not really.

I tried to argue my side:  a) no one is disputing police officer's acting within the bounds of the law; but that the law itself is unjust; b) it is unreasonable to enforce a law with such rigidity when there is no reasonable attempt to inform SLC residents of this law; c) the law is stupid and needs an outclause or two.  I guess it's a good thing I'm not a litigator.

I resisted my urge to take things to a personal level with one who was so clearly drunk off the drop of presumed power this hearing officer imbibed.  Thoughts of commenting on his receding hairline, how pit stains really show when you wear rayon shirts, asking how the last Trekkie convention was, or whether he still talks to his incarcerated mother, or what it's like earning $10 an hour when you're over thirty-five, were seriously considered before I decided to not give any of them a voice.  But oh how I wanted...


Kelly said...

Oh how frustrating! I think your arguments were spot on. As was your comment about the hearing officer's mom.

Mary said...

Thanks, Kelly! Coming from an attorney, that means a lot.