texastwister's posterous

Interview with my Grandfather

My Grandfather, Oliver Boyer, was born in 1912 and lived into his 90s. Most of his life he was a farmer in Central Kansas.  Some time before his death, my uncle Dale recorded these conversations about the events of his life.  My mom just passed these recordings on to me. Granddad was soft-spoken and a little shy about the whole thing, so the recording was somewhat hard to hear at points -- so I decided to try my hand at a little audio editing.

 

After noise reduction, normalization, and compression, here are the results:  

(download)

(download)
(download)

I'm posting these primarily for others in my extended family, but feel free to "listen in" as a down-to-earth farmer describes his long life in Kansas.

The Conversation I'd Like to Have with You

If we sat down together for an undisturbed conversation, there are a great many things we could talk about. I'm always up for talking about Linux and open-source computer software. I love discussing political topics. Current scientific discoveries are an interest of mine, as are ethics, morality, and philosophy. Sports are a topic I might discuss -- especially anything related to Texas Longhorn sports. But I realize, to my regret, that some of you might not be able to predict what I would consider the most important topic we could discuss...

I'm a disciple of Jesus Christ. And while that may be surprising to some of you given my sceptical approach to most topics, I've applied that same skeptical approach to the claims of Christianity and I hold to the beliefs that I have for reasons that I find solid and satisfying. And if my beliefs are true, it is to your great benefit to adopt them too. So it is not out of some compulsion to force everyone to adopt what I believe that I'm motivated to try to persuade others to consider the evidence for the truth of Christianity -- nor is it out of disrespect for what others believe and teach -- but because I want what is best for you for life and eternity. To live quietly without ever seeking to persuade you to consider the full case for Christianity would be unkind, unfriendly, disrespectful, and unloving towards you.

So I hope you'll stick with me in reading what I'd like to share with you, my friends, if given the opportunity. And I would love the opportunity to discuss things further with any of you who are interested.

The Beginning of my Belief

I didn't come to Christianity with a skeptical mindset -- I was brought up with it by parents who deeply believed and who lived out their faith, and by the godly men and women they brought into our lives as part of our Christian community. I was taught well and deeply in my early years by men and women like Katy Mae Fricks, Bob Wilmoth, Mickey and Debby Birney, David Skurlock, Gilbert Forrest and many others. Names you probably have never heard and may never hear again -- but they lived out their faith and passed it on to me.

So, I believed, at first, because the people I loved and respected told me it was true.

The Questioning of my Belief

But that would not be forever satisfying. In my Jr. High and High School years I was striving to be a careful thinker. And as will inevitably happen with any believer with a contemplative bent, I began to question what I'd been taught. It wasn't enough for me to believe just because it was what "our people" are "supposed to believe" -- I needed to know: Was it real? Was it true? Is there evidence?

I've heard many people tell of how "questioning" was strongly discouraged or forbidden in their religious upbringing. Or how the questions they asked fell on deaf ears, or were met with stumped silence. Thankfully, this was not my case. Just when I was starting to question, I was met by people with reasonable answers. At a summer camp, for example, one of the staff taught a class that included some basic apologetics and an introduction to Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict".

My parents' attitude was helpful as well. When I was entertaining speculations with which they didn't agree, they weren't disturbed or upset -- but just pointed out reasons that their positions seemed better supported than the novel theories that had caught my attention.

I came away from that period of time with two convictions (which have only strengthened with time):

  • It is okay to question in a search for truth -- but not in a stubborn effort to avoid the implications of the truth I've already discovered. If I'm disturbed about something in my faith, I should investigate it. If my faith is true it will withstand the scrutiny. If it is not, I have no reason to be loyal to it.
  • The answers are out there. Great thinkers have wrestled with these issues for centuries. The questions and objections being raised with renewed visibility today by men like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and others are not really new. And while the details of the science they offer in support of their objections are updated, they've not really advanced the philosophical discussion much beyond the point where their predecessors left it.

The Rational Basis for my Faith

My approach in trying to assess the rational support for the existance of God starts with my observations of the world around me and which (of at least two, and possibly more) hypothesis best explains the world around me and all that we know of it.

Here are the points of comparison I find compelling:

  • We live in a world where every single thing we know of, or have every encountered, seems to have a cause for its existance. And yet, an infinite regress seems both philosophically and scientifically impossible (I'll grant that there are some theories at the fringes of accepted science that attempt to explain how this might be possible -- but they are new, battling for acceptance, and likely to ultimately be subject to the same problems as previous attempts).

    The God Hypothesis:

    Proposes an eternal uncaused first cause.

    The Naturalistic Hypothesis:

    Proposes either that the universe has always existed (denied by current science) or that something came from nothing without cause.

  • We live in a world where every single instance of "code", "instructions", or "design" (with the sole exception of the genetic code!) is deemed to be the product of a mind.

    The God Hypothesis:

    The genetic code was designed by God. That it resembles in so many respects the work of intelligent minds is therefore unsurprising.

    The Naturalistic Hypothesis:

    The genetic code in all its complexity is a unique example of a processes which developed sophisticated instructions without the involvement of any intelligence. That it resembles in so many respects the work of intelligent minds is a fluke of nature and utterly inexplicable.

  • We live in a world where we seem to be free to make choices and to "have our own say" in what we will do or not do.

    The Naturalistic Hypothesis:

    Either 1) We are material beings only and only event causation exists. Therefore certain stimuli cause certain neurons to fire in a certain way and we act only with the illusion of free will. Or 2) Free will exists but we cannot yet explain it (attempts are being made through appeals to quantum indeterminacy and "emergent properties).

    The God Hypothesis:

    We are of two parts, a material body and a non-material mind (or spirit, or soul...) which can interact with our bodies apart from materialistic stimuli. It is this non-material component that allows us to choose what we do.

  • We live in a world where we seem to have ethical obligations to act in certain ways (morality). While some people argue that this is not the case, it seems true that no one fully lives as though it were not the case.

    The Naturalistic Hypothesis:

    Either 1) Morals are actually relativistic. The most we can say of them is, "I think this is right and that is wrong" or "We (society) have decided that this is right and that is wrong." Or 2) Morals are objective but we cannot account for why they should be so. (Sam Harris' arguments and others like them seem utterly inadequate to me).

    The God Hypothesis:

    Morals really are objective and consist of an obligation to act according to the nature we were given as creations of a moral God. We may not alway rightly understand these objective morals, but they are nonetheless there.

These are just a few of the areas I could discuss, but this is to be a post to Facebook and to a Blog site, not a novel.

And I realize that these discussions alone don't lead anywhere near an arrival at belief in a Christian God specifically. But they are areas in which I've been persuaded that the "God Hypothesis" is a better explanation for what I see and what I know than other alternatives. We can discuss later the addional points in favor of a Christian view of God.

There is so much more I could go into. But I remind myself that I need not persuade anyone in one sitting. Those who are open to such ideas will be able to flesh them out in later conversations or through their own explorations. Those that aren't open to them wouldn't be persuaded no matter how comprehensive my case.

Suffice it to say this is a small sampling of the reasons I believe my faith is rational.

These may not be questions you are wrestling with -- perhaps there are others. I'd love to help you seek answers to anything that genuinely holds you back, and show you the evidences that point to God as the best explanation for the world around us.

The Game-changing Element

While I believe it is possible, and legitimate, to come to believe in and trust Jesus Christ based only on the rational arguments I've been primarily discussing and alluding to, I'd be misrepresenting myself if I said they were the reason I believe today. In fact, it's probably fair to say I misstate the case to characterise my trust in Jesus as "belief in" him in the way that phrase is normally employed. For I can more accurately say that I know he exists.

Do you know Sweden has a king? You may believe he exists based on what others have said, or based on the evidence of photos in the newspaper. You have no real reason to disbelieve in him. And his existence is the best explanation for the evidence at hand. But I have the evidence of my own senses since on a Boy Scout trip to Sweden in 1979 I got to meet him and shake his hand. You may believe he exists. I know he exists.

In the same way, I know God exists. More than that, I know him. I've talked to him and received answers. I've experienced some taste of the presence of God. I've felt him move in a room of people, clearly taking over the direction of a meeting and guiding us to where he wanted us to be. Subjective? Of course! Unmistakeable to those who were there -- indescribable for whose who were not... I freely admit that this is utterly unpersuasive to those who are looking for rational evidence (that's why I've saved it for last -- I'll not try to persuade you to believe on something like this...).

Except. . .

. . . just maybe you consider me a credible witness. Maybe you trust that I've examined that subjective experience with a critical eye. Maybe you've come to trust me as a level-headed clear-thinker and my testimony of what I've experienced carries some weight with you.

If so, let's talk. There's someone I'd like to introduce you to.

Greg Koukl on "Science of the Gaps"


In this clip (excised with permission from his podcast), Greg discusses the claim that Intelligent Design theory is a "God of the Gaps" position, and shows that sometimes it is naturalism that is guilty of a "Science of the Gaps" approach.

I'd love to hear responses from my atheist/agnostic/naturalist friends...

(download)

Consuming our petroleum reserves with no replacement plans...

Another thought from the "Patriot Post" (http://patriotpost.us/edition/2011/03/14/brief/) that deserves your contemplation:

"[N]ow gasoline costs more than $4 a gallon in many places in California, and averages more than $3.50 nationwide. In response, the Obama administration is reportedly considering tapping into the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve to increase supplies and drive down high prices brought on by a recovering world economy and unrest in the oil-rich Middle East. Yet the reserve depot was not designed to alleviate periodic gas-price spikes, but to ensure our very survival during a global catastrophe that might result in a cutoff of most petroleum imports from overseas. There are now more than 700 million barrels of stored oil in the reserve. In times of near-Armageddon, even that huge supply would provide for all of the nation's oil needs for only a single month. It would make up for all imported oil cutoffs for only two months. So how is it wise to tap this critical but finite reserve -- especially when the current administration had prohibited new oil and gas production in large parts of the Gulf of Mexico and the western United States? The administration certainly will not reconsider new drilling in oil-rich areas in Alaska or elsewhere off the American coasts. The message to Americans seems to be that it is OK to consume old oil stockpiled by previous generations (the reserve was begun in 1975), but quite wrong to drill for new oil to be used by the present generation."
--historian Victor Davis Hanson

 

Are you at the "boiling point" yet?

This quote, coming to me through the "Patriot Post" (http://patriotpost.us/edition/2011/03/14/brief/), deserves your contemplation:

"In Washington, D.C., America is witnessing one of the grossest spectacles of fiscal incompetency, coupled with denial, ever perpetrated by a political party. And that's the Republicans. Democrats have made it clear that they will accept nothing less than the destruction of the republic, if that's what it take to prove progressivism is 'successful.' Over the top? Consider this: the highest cut in the federal budget proposed by the Irresponsible Republicans is $61 billion. The Democrat Destroyers say such a cut is way over the top. Last month, in 28 days, our government spent $223 billion of money we don't have. That's nearly four times more than the cuts proposed by the Irresponsibles, every one of which will be fought tooth and nail by the Destroyers. Any questions? I have one. At what point does this eyes-wide-open effort to bankrupt America reach the boiling point with the American public? If someone came into your house and 'borrowed' a little over seven hundred bucks -- per family member -- I bet most Americans would be pretty upset. Well try dividing $233 billion in borrowed money by 300 million Americans, and guess what: that's precisely what the Obama administration added to every citizen's share of the debt -- in one month."

--columnist Arnold Ahlert

 

 

Final Notes on Our Grievance with Cedar Park

I'm done.  I don't think we were fairly treated, and most who've discussed it with me agree -- but clearly the city is entrenched in their position and nothing further that I do will change that.  If they are to be moved, I suspect the only way is for those of you who live there and are the constituents of these fine officials to plead our case for us.

Implications:

1) If I lived there, I'd certainly be making some plans for upcoming political campaigns.  Perhaps some of you who live there will feel likewise.  I hope so.

2) When I consider which part of the greater austin area to shop in, I have a new factor to consider.  Having moved from Anderson Mill (right next door to Cedar Park) only last October, we still have great familiarity with the Cedar Park area and the shops there.  Lakeline Mall has been a favored shopping destination.  You suspect that might change?

3) The city is not alone in mishandling this affair.  I've expressed the following to the staff of my church.  I will not make a big deal of it here or elsewhere, but I want to offer this for the consideration of others who may face similar decisions in other churches:

We were told that the police were called by the church because they felt the handicapped spaces were being abused.  I certainly understand the concern.  But I believe that this matter would fall under the principle expressed in 1 Co 6:1-5 as something that should have been handled within the church family rather than involving the police and the courts.  If someone within the family had been involved, they surely would have known that we had been in that same spot, for both services, with placard displayed, loading and unloading a wheelchair, every single week, for over a year. 

So that's that.  An expensive lesson, but one well-learned -- I won't again be so confident that reason will win out when the system is allowed to work.

 

A Lesson in dealing with the city of Cedar Park, TX

Mr. Rowland,

You do a fine job of "circling the wagons" around your people, but without considering the substance of our reasonable request.

"The City has proceeded in this case in accordance with the law as it has in thousands of cases each year."

Except that, by your admission, it did not proceed in the same with with others in the same circumstances -- dropping their cases because they complained and knew the right way to work outside the system, but not dropping ours because all we knew to do was to try to work within the system.

"As it turns, out Ms. Purcell pled guilty before the Judge"

...because it seemed the right thing to do, given that we were parked in the spot without the placard displayed on that particular day.  Our error was in thinking that a judge might exercise judgement and be willing and able to consider the extenuating circumstances that I outlined in previous correspondence -- probably the same kind of extenuating circumstances that played a role in your decision not to prosecute others ticketed that same day. 

Well... we know now that in legal matters concerning your fine city, should any arise in the future, that we should first seek ways around your "fair" system.  Complaining to people of influence, etc.  Then, we should seek legal counsel since you clearly don't intend for the system to be usable by people w/o legal training.  Then, we should insist on the greater expense of a jury trial, so that we can actually be before reasonable people and hope against hope that they are permitted to use their reason.

Clearly, this is not going to be a productive avenue to pursue further, so I don't expect (but would still welcome) any reply from you. 

Thank you for the lesson in dealing with the city of Cedar Park.


Scott Purcell


On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Charles Rowland <Charles.Rowland@cedarparktx.us> wrote:

This email is in reply to yours of 1-3-11 to me at 8:55 P.M.

 

I disagree with your email entirely. I believe your anger with the City is misdirected and unjustified. If there is fault it does not lie with the City in the prosecution of Nanette Purcell’s handicap parking ticket. The City has proceeded in this case in accordance with the law as it has in thousands of cases each year.  As it turns, out Ms. Purcell pled guilty before the Judge on November 30, 2010 after signing a waiver of a trial before the Court and a waiver of a jury trial. The Judge found her guilty at that time and signed the appropriate Court orders. At that same time she asked for thirty days to pay the fine which was granted. She paid the fine early on December 7, 2010. Ms. Purcell exercised her rights to proceed with her case as she saw appropriate. I also note that at no time has it been asserted that Ms. Purcell had properly posted the required sign or permit in the vehicle or that she is innocent.

 

In the second paragraph of your 1-3-11 email to me it is admitted that Ms. Purcell consulted with a Court  Bailiff about an appeal. That is not the best source from which to seek legal advice. However, the fact is that the right to an appeal was known by Ms. Purcell before any time for appeal had expired, being Friday, December 10, 2010. The right to an appeal and the ten days in which to file it was created by the legislature without any ability by any one, except the legislature, to change it. Once the ten days has expired that right has ended.

 

I am sorry that this event has happened in your life and has caused the pain that it has.

 

Charles W. Rowland

City Attorney

Ofc: (512) 401-5004

charles.rowland@cedarparktx.us

 

 

CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE:  This communication is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If you are not the intended recipient of this information, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited.

 

My follow-up to the City Attorney.

Thank you for your reply and your expressed willingness to answer further questions.  I do have a few...

Had I received your reply when you made it on Dec 8th, we would have been within the 10 days of the judgement in which to appeal this case.  How convenient for the city that your reply to the city did not include me.  Can we request an extension of the deadline to file an appeal on these grounds?

So, in essence, while our case might have been dismissed had we known the right people to take it up with, we were penalized (while others escaped penalty) because we tried to work within the system as best we knew how?    Because we didn't know that the church might have any power in this matter?  Because we didn't know to talk to the prosecutor instead of the judge?  Because our attempts to get consideration from the judge (which we did attempt in several ways!) were not couched in the appropriate legal language to be considered "an objection" and because my wife was led to believe (by the bailiff's explanation) that an appeal was likely to be difficult and ultimately fruitless?

This appears to me to make the city's position worse, rather than better.  It shows favoritism and selective enforcement of the law and creates the impression that the only opportunity for reason to prevail is to try to pull strings (outside the legal process) before a case gets to court rather than to trust that we can find reasonable treatment within the process.

Thank you for your time,

Scott Purcell

A response from the Cedar Park City Attorney

An email from a friend on our behalf (thanks, Bruce!) finally elicits a reply from the City Attorney.  I post it here unmodified, my response will follow.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Charles Rowland <Charles.Rowland@cedarparktx.us>
Date: Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 10:47 AM
Subject: Redress for a Complaint - Handicapped Parking
To: scottpurcell78750@gmail.com, bcorbett@austin.rr.com
Cc: _City Council Members <citycouncil@cedarparktx.us>, Brenda Eivens <Brenda.Eivens@cedarparktx.us>


Gentleman,

 

I have been asked to respond to both of you concerning a citation issued on October 10, 2010 to Nanette Purcell who pled guilty on December 7, 2010 to parking in a handicap parking space at the Hill Country Bible Church without displaying a proper sign indicating the right to park there. I wish to apologize to you, Scott, because while I did respond to the City Council on December 8th with an explanation of these events in regards to your email of December 7th, I failed to include you in the response. Here are the facts that I researched and sent to the City Council.

 

The Hill Country Bible Church first called the Cedar Park Police Department (PD) because a fair number of vehicles were regularly parked in their handicapped spaces without displaying the legally required permits or signs. The Church wanted to make sure that the reserved parking spaces were available to and used by their members who needed them.  To correct this practice the Church asked the Cedar Park PD to come out and issue citations to the violators. The way the law is written a violation occurs when the required sign or permit is not properly displayed while parking in a handicapped space. The violation has nothing to do with whether or not a proper permit or sign was issued and in effect at the time of the citation. It is my understanding that after citations were issued the Church received complaints from some of those who received citations and Pastor Doug James asked the PD not prosecute the citations. It is the authority of the municipal court prosecutor, not the Judge, to dismiss a case before the case reaches the Judge. My Municipal Court Prosecutor, after talking with the Officer involved, immediately dismissed about three cases, all that he had at the time.  It appears that Ms. Purcell did not complain to the Church.  It also appears that she went through the regular court process and pled guilty to the violation, raising no objections and not asking for an appeal.

 

The Officer who issued the Citations would have been the testifying witness to the violation if a trial had been requested. In my opinion, as a former municipal prosecutor and municipal court judge, the sole facts to be proved would be where the vehicle was parked, was that space identified as a handicapped space and was there a valid permit or sign properly displayed. The Officer must have believed that the space was properly marked, a vehicle was in that space and that there was no properly displayed sign or permit. It would seem then that the plea was justified and not asking for an appeal was also justified.

 

As to the fine issue, it is the Municipal Court Presiding Judge who sets the fine schedule for various offenses. Once set the Judge has no discretion to adjust the fine schedule on a case by case basis.  Since the schedule applies to many types of cases it takes a considerable amount of review, and therefore time, before it is changed again. One of the purposes of the fine schedule is to let the public know what a fine amount is for a particular violation and that it will be the same for everyone. The fine for this violation is $ 250.00 with $17.00 court costs.

 

Once the Judge has signed the order finding the individual guilty and sets the fine amount the matter is over and can not be reversed. It can be appealed within ten days of the judgment on procedural grounds and factual evidence. It is not possible for the City Council, Judge, Prosecutor, Municipal Court Clerk or anyone else to reverse this process at this stage. This is the same for any court including a County Criminal Court or a District Criminal Court.

 

The Judge in this case handled this matter in the only way he could.

 

If I may answer any other questions you have I will be pleased to do so.

 

 

 

 

Charles W. Rowland

City Attorney

Ofc: (512) 401-5004

charles.rowland@cedarparktx.us

 

 

CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE:  This communication is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If you are not the intended recipient of this information, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited.

 

 


Cedar Park, TX Municipal Court Judge gets tough on the Handicapped -- at church!

The Facts of the Case
  
10/10/2010 11 am, Sunday Morning, cited for parking in a handicapped space at Hill Country Bible Church
 
Officer was KHohertz Badge 1437, Cedar Park PD

Citation was E0000721

We had a valid handicapped tag but it had recently been stolen or perhaps lost in the shuffle of moving the prior week.

We had routinely been transporting my mother-in-law, Phyllis Nungester, to church with us (Phyllis requires the use of supplemental oxygen and a wheel chair) and parking in the same spot for about a year.  Because we were in a familiar place, a "safe" place, in a familiar vehicle in a regular spot, where we had displayed our placard week after week, we wrongly assumed that we would be okay on Sunday until we could get a replacement placard.

After several delays, and at least three trips (30 mile round trips) and 8 phone calls trying to resolve the matter (the ticket didn't "work its way through the system" in a timely manner), the court date was finally set for  12/15.

Recognizing that the officer had no way of knowing that we had a valid placard, but believing that the court would acknowledge that a) we were using the spot for its intended purpose, b) we had taken the steps to comply with the law by obtaining the placard, we hoped that Judge Joseph Oswald would set aside the fine and allow us to pay court costs only.  But he insisted on requiring the full fine -- $267 -- a non-trivial sum on our salary and especially at this time of the year.

This, we believe to be a miscarriage of justice.  The laws regarding handicapped parking spaces were intended to ensure that spaces were available for those in precisely our circumstances -- who need the extra space and the nearer proximity to accomodate the use of wheelchairs, or other types of handicaps.  When these laws are used to penalize the very people they were intended to protect, then no matter how much the judge kept to the letter of the law, he compromised the spirit of it.

 

The Redress We Seek:
 
We want the reduction of the fines to no more than reasonable court costs and the refund of the balance.  If the court and city of Cedar Park want to make a gesture of goodwill, they might refund the court costs as well -- since the costs they incurred to dispose of this matter should roughly balance the expense we incurred due to their errors and inefficiencies as we made several trips across town at times when we should have been able to resolve this matter-- only to be told the ticket hadn't been processed yet and we'd have to try again later.


Questions:
 
Do Cedar Park PD officers routinely patrol church parking lots to enforce handicapped parking, or only in response to complaints?  If in response to complaints, is it only in response to complaints from the property owner (the church) or from anyone?


People to Contact:

Judge Joseph Oswald

Members of the city councy (who appoint the judge):

   Bob Lemon, Mayor
   Matt Powell, Place 1
   Mitch Fuller, Place 2 Mayor Pro Tem
   Scott Mitchell, Place 3
   Lowell Moore, Place 4
   Tony Dale, Place 5
   Don Tracy, Place 6

mayor@ci.cedar-park.tx.us; place1@ci.cedar-park.tx.us; place2@ci.cedar-park.tx.us; place3@ci.cedar-park.tx.us; place4@ci.cedar-park.tx.us; place5@ci.cedar-park.tx.us; place6@ci.cedar-park.tx.us

Letter to the City Council:
 
Dear Sirs,

Because I note that part of your responsibility is the appointment of the Municipal Judges, I want to bring to your attention a ruling that I believe is a miscarriage of justice, an inappropriate application of the law, and that casts your city in a bad light.  I have attempted to contact the judge to discuss it, and I hope he will respond positively but in the event he does not, I thought you should know of today's ruling in the matter described below.


On Sunday morning, Oct. 10th we were cited for parking in a handicapped space at Hill Country Bible Church

The Officer issuing the citation was K. Hohertz, Badge 1437, Cedar Park PD. The citation number was E0000721.

We had a valid handicapped tag (evidence of this was produced for the court) but it had recently been stolen or perhaps lost in the shuffle of moving from Anderson Mill to Hutto one week prior to the citation.

We had routinely been transporting my mother-in-law, Phyllis Nungester, to church with us (Phyllis requires the use of supplemental oxygen and a wheel chair) and parking in the same spot for about a year.  Because we were in a familiar place, a "safe" place, in a familiar vehicle in a regular spot, where we had displayed our placard week after week, we wrongly assumed that we would be okay on Sunday until we could get a replacement placard.

After several delays, and at least three trips (30 mile round trips) and 8 phone calls trying to resolve the matter (the ticket didn't "work its way through the system" in a timely manner), the court date was finally set for  12/15.

Recognizing that the officer had no way of knowing that we had a valid placard, we fully expected to be assessed court costs and would have considered that reasonable.  But believing that the court would acknowledge that a) we were using the spot for its intended purpose, b) we had taken the steps to comply with the law by obtaining the placard, we hoped that Judge Joseph Oswald would set aside the fine and allow us to pay court costs only.  But he insisted on requiring the full fine -- $267 -- a non-trivial sum on our salary and especially at this time of the year.

This, we believe to be a miscarriage of justice.  The laws regarding handicapped parking spaces were intended to ensure that spaces were available for those in precisely our circumstances -- who need the extra space and the nearer proximity to accomodate the use of wheelchairs, or other types of handicaps.  When these laws are used to penalize the very people they were intended to protect, then no matter how much the judge kept to the letter of the law, he compromised the spirit of it.

The redress we are hoping for is the reduction of the fines to no more than reasonable court costs and the refund of the balance.  If the court and city of Cedar Park want to make a gesture of goodwill, they might refund the court costs as well -- since the costs they incurred to dispose of this matter should roughly balance the expense we incurred due to their errors and inefficiencies as we made several trips across town at times when we should have been able to resolve this matter-- only to be told the ticket hadn't been processed yet and we'd have to try again later.

But in the event that such redress is not forthcoming, I hope that you will keep in mind the (in my view) poor judgement exhibited in our case when you next consider court appointments.

I'm also interested in finding answers to a couple of policy questions with regard to the Cedar Park PD -- Do Cedar Park PD officers routinely patrol church parking lots to enforce handicapped parking, or only in response to complaints?  If in response to complaints, is it only in response to complaints from the property owner (the church) or from anyone?

Thank you for any consideration you're able to give to our complaint and any redress you're able to gain for us.

Sincerely,

Scott Purcell

Scott@texastwister.info