Talk:Traffic Violations Bureau

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

New York (state) Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

POV

Honestly, I think this is a bit one-sided. I imagine it's probably very much like what the article says, but the authors here are drawing their own conclusions, such as how not allowing discovery "is the equivilent to denying a motorist a decent chance at adequately defending him/herself". This is original research at best, or at worst the author's opinion stated as fact. Thoughts?

Sorry, this was me. My browser likes to forget login cookies it seems. Spoom - Talk 19:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Agreement--

I'm new to this, so I'm not sure I'm doing it right. However, I agree with your assessment of the article. Citations would help to make the information more reliable. It would also be easier to tell what is public opinion, what is personal opinion, and what is fact. Sealsrose (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've unfortunately been to TVB 'court' on anumber of ocassions and completely agree with the author's description. The approach of almost all the judges I've encountered there is that the motorist is 'guilty until proven innocent'. Not only has this been the case with my own hearings but with almost all the hearings that I witnessed while waiting for mine as well. At certain points I felt like laughing out loud at the preposterous and unsubstantiated allegations of the police officers and the judges casual dismissal of well thought out and well presented statements of defense by defendants. It truly is a kangaroo court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.206.163 (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have pretty much rewritten the article, and I believe the POV tag can be safely removed. Nathans (talk) 08:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Challenging characterization of TVB as an administrative court as OR

The problem is this edit by User:Int21h on 5 February 2016. This was part of a larger pattern of User:Int21h improperly characterizing a number of ALJ employers as administrative courts on WP articles all over the place, which (1) reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of political science and (2) amounts to original research in violation of WP:NOR.

Neither of the first two cited sources actually states that the TVB is an admin court. In fact, the DMV Web page is clearly discussing the TVB in contradistinction to an actual court. This is consistent with how ALJs are typically discussed, in that the diversion of original jurisdiction to ALJs is often justified by the necessity of reducing the burden on actual courts.

An administrative court in the jurisdictions that use them is an actual court within the judicial branch which exercises original jurisdiction over matters of administrative law. ALJs merely preside over quasi-judicial hearings on behalf of the executive branch, but they are not part of the judicial branch and they do not preside over courts. This goes to the very heart of the concept of separation of powers. Any objections before I fix this mess? Coolcaesar (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]