BOSTON TRAFFIC COURT: Why Boston Traffic Court Should Be Closed

Traffic Court in Boston is a system of courts built on an outdated model.

Its main function is to serve the court’s primary purpose: to provide a trial for traffic offenses.

In contrast, courtrooms in other cities provide an opportunity for defendants to argue their case and have their cases heard by a judge.

But for the past several decades, the courts in Boston have increasingly relied on a system where traffic offenders plead guilty to traffic violations and have traffic tickets handed down.

Traffic tickets in Boston are issued by a traffic court administrator who is responsible for reviewing traffic tickets issued in the county and, if they are serious, for issuing fines.

This process creates a process that requires an enormous amount of paperwork, which often means the courts are overburdened.

Because traffic tickets in the state of Massachusetts are issued through the Massachusetts Department of Motor Vehicles, the Department of Transportation, and the Department on Aging (DODA), the traffic court system is far more complicated than a typical traffic court.

This system creates enormous costs, and it also creates huge opportunities for fraud.

The system is so inefficient that a study commissioned by the Massachusetts Court Administration concluded that the traffic courts were not keeping up with the times and could not be expected to serve more than a fraction of the court population.

The report’s authors said that “the court system must be overhauled if it is to become a viable public justice system.”

This study, which was written by Harvard law professor Andrew Zimbalist and his colleagues, was commissioned by MassDOT in 2013, the year of the D.C. court system’s collapse.

It was an independent, bipartisan, and bipartisan report.

Its conclusions were based on data from over 1,000 traffic court cases in Massachusetts from 2001 to 2013, and more than 1,300 traffic tickets and 2,000 fines issued in Massachusetts during that time period.

They showed that traffic tickets were issued in more than 70 percent of the traffic cases, in nearly two-thirds of the cases, and in about two-fifths of the fines.

The researchers also showed that the number of traffic court violations issued in a year was approximately four times the number issued in one year.

They concluded that Massachusetts was overburdening the system and that the system was becoming unsustainable.

For the past few years, the Boston Traffic Courts have been subject to an ongoing lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Massachusetts Bar Association (MBA) because the Massachusetts courts were unable to properly follow court procedures.

In January of this year, the Massachusetts court administration announced a plan to overhaul the traffic justice system, but it has not yet fully completed the plan.

Instead, the state is now working with the Massachusetts state legislature to create a new traffic court that will use a simplified trial and jury system.

This trial and juries system will provide defendants with an opportunity to explain their cases and will provide a judge with a reasonable chance to hear their cases.

However, the trial andjuries system is currently not a federal program.

The trial andjury system is a combination of court-approved jury trials, which are conducted in a courtroom, and private, non-judicial trials, in which the court administrator or judge does not preside over the trial but rather conducts the trial.

In Massachusetts, private trial and jurors trials are conducted on the Massachusetts Superior Court and the court system has the discretion to decide how and when they are conducted.

Private trial and juror trials are designed to give defendants an opportunity “to express their case through a jury trial and to make their case to a judge who will decide their case.”

Under the trial process in Massachusetts, defendants have a limited number of hours to present their case before the judge.

They can present the evidence and cross-examine witnesses, but are not allowed to present evidence in a formal court proceeding.

Defendants are also not allowed a public forum during the trial, and no defense counsel is allowed during the hearing.

However for some types of traffic violations, the defendant is allowed to take a witness stand, or be present in a separate room from the judge, during the preliminary examination, which is conducted at a different time each day.

In the current system, defendants are allowed to be present for a trial by video conference, which means they are allowed one minute of their allotted time to ask questions and provide a statement to the court.

At the end of the trial by videoconference, the judge is expected to sign off on the verdict, which can be appealed to the Superior Court.

In practice, most defendants do not have access to a video conference or an opportunity at a public hearing during the initial phase of the case, so defendants are often reluctant to present during the second and third phases of their cases, especially for traffic violations.

The Boston Traffic Cases were the first case in which a defendant who had not been charged with a traffic offense was able to cross-