. Forum

[monarchylover]

.

[scammedhard]

If you are unsure whether to answer "yes," we strongly recommend answering "yes" and fully disclosing all incidents.

Confusing question... I say disclose because the "charges" would have resulted in penalties greater than 200 and were not "minor traffic violations." Everybody knows that one can hire a lawyer and have charges reduced or dismissed by fooling around in the courthouse; law schools and the bar are interested in the original charges, not the legal maneuvering.

[monarchylover]

.

[scammedhard]

so why does it say "or resulted in a fine of less than $200.00"

"you may omit minor traffic violations that did not result in a jail sentence, warrant for arrest, suspension, or revocation of driver's license; or resulted in a fine of less than $200.00."

I just think that your violations were not "minor traffic violations," and therefore the rest of the criteria do not apply. To me, "minor traffic violations" that fit that criteria would be most non-moving violations, like missing a license tag, or driving w/o proof of insurance (later dismissed because you had insurance), or having a malfunctioning headlamp, etc. Maybe even speeding fits that criteria (unless the state considers it a misdemeanor); but I don't think "reckless driving" does.

EDIT: The whole point of adding a "Reckless Driving" charge to a speeding ticket is to stress the seriousness of the violation.

[monarchylover]

.

[scammedhard]

I called and asked admissions they told me I do not need disclose it because I wasn't arrested/jailed, my license was not suspended/revoked and not over $200.

OK. That ends it.