Visit Counter

Friday, December 19, 2014

Low-income drivers in Ferguson





Reformers target traffic courts in Ferguson






ST. LOUIS — In the aftermath of Michael Brown’s death, legal activists suggested that some of the raw anger that erupted in suburban St. Louis had its roots in an unlikely place — traffic court.

It was there, they said, that low-income drivers sometimes saw their lives upended by minor infractions that led to larger problems. If left unpaid, a $75 ticket for driving with expired tags could eventually bring an arrest warrant and even jail time.

This only happens to blacks. All Caucasians get a free pass.

So courts began an experimental amnesty program designed to give offenders a second chance by waiving those warrants. But the effort is attracting relatively few participants, despite a renewed emphasis on municipal court reform after Brown’s death last summer in Ferguson.

St. Louis County’s jumble of more than 80 municipal courts has been targeted by some public-interest lawyers who say the courts are virtual debtor’s prisons, extracting fines and fees from poor drivers and using the money to fund local governments, which in some cases serve just a few hundred residents.

“They make people poor, and they keep people poor,” said Thomas Harvey of the nonprofit legal clinic ArchCity Defenders, which is suing Ferguson and six other small cities, alleging they collect illegal municipal court fees.

Missouri’s auditor is reviewing the finances of several such courts statewide, including Ferguson, and some legislators want to limit the amount of money small cities can collect from traffic violations.



Critics of the traffic courts describe prolonged legal nightmares that can begin with tickets for driving with a suspended license or without proof of required inspections, what Harvey called “crimes of poverty.”

 Driving with a suspended license is deemed
“Crimes of poverty?"

These are the top three reasons a person has their license suspended.


1. Point Accumulation

Most states have a point system that assigns points to both minor and major traffic offenses. Once a driver reaches a certain number of points within a predetermined time period, he ends up with a suspended license.

License suspension for point accumulation usually lasts for a predetermined time period, the length of which depends on the number of points.

2. Repeat Violations

Generally, repeat violations (also called habitual offenses) refer to racking up a certain number of specific violations within a specific time frame.

For example, several states suspend licenses after drivers commit a certain number of reckless driving offenses (usually two or three) within a specific time frame (usually 12 months to three years).

NOTE: Depending on your state, you could receive a “habitual offender” status for getting a certain number of convictions within a certain time period, regardless of the specific violations.

3. Serious Offenses

Depending on your state, some serious violations (or convictions) lead to immediate license suspension.

Examples include:
Driving Under the Influence (DUI), Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), Operating While Intoxicated (OWI), or whatever name your state has for it.
Felonies involving a motor vehicle.
Vehicular manslaughter or homicide.
Leaving the scene of an accident.
Fleeing or evading the police.

Maybe Barry should decree another Executive Order.
If you like your license you can keep your license period. No matter what.


Defendants unable to pay those fines or hire an attorney to negotiate a plea deal may then miss their court dates or fail to sign up for installment-payment plans. Judges issue failure-to-appear warrants, which can lead to larger fines and court costs and even jail time on top of the original penalties, not to mention time missed from work or school.

Robert Lamont Douglas, 39, was recently issued five citations in the village of Bel-Ridge for traffic violations that included driving without insurance and failing to register his car.

What were the other 3 for? How is it you can afford to buy a car but can't afford to register it?

“The main question was, ‘Am I wanted or do I have drugs in the car,’” Douglas said. “I was singled out because I was black. The assumption is I must have warrants, drugs or guns.”

Perhaps this may have something to do with it.




A 2013 report by the Missouri attorney general’s office found that Ferguson police stopped and arrested black drivers nearly twice as frequently as white motorists but were also less likely to find contraband among black drivers.

Race breakdown in Ferguson:


  • Black alone - 13,753 (64.9%)
  • White alone - 6,494 (30.6%)
  • Two or more races - 437 (2.1%)
  • Asian alone - 263 (1.2%)
  • Hispanic - 156 (0.7%)
  • American Indian alone - 34 (0.2%)
  • Other race alone - 45 (0.2%)
  • Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone - 23 (0.1%)

  • The amnesty program in the city of St. Louis allows defendants who face arrest for failing to appear in municipal court to reschedule those hearings without penalty. But it has attracted fewer than 4,000 participants out of 75,000 who are eligible, despite an aggressive outreach campaign.

    Which tells you what? Most lack any sense of responsibility even when given a second chance.

    The story is similar in St. Louis County, where just a few hundred people have opted for an amnesty program that requires a $100 payment to wipe out traffic-court arrest warrants. Both efforts continue through the end of the year.

    In Ferguson, the city no longer issues failure-to-appear warrants and is dismissing the charge in pending cases. Elected officials in September voted to cap municipal court revenues at 15 percent of revenue, eliminated a fee for towing cars and forgave warrants for nearly 600 defendants.








    Share/Bookmark

    Thursday, December 18, 2014

    The Senate Democrats say we tortured some people after 9/11 ...




















    Share/Bookmark

    Wednesday, December 17, 2014

    The Americans with No Abilities Act (ANAA)




    (aka - No Fool Left Behind)





    Today President Barack Obama and the Democratic Senate signed into law sweeping legislation that will provide new benefits for many more Americans. The Americans with No Abilities Act is being hailed as a major legislative goal by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or ambition.

    "Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society," said California Sen. Barbara Boxer. "We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability (POI) to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they have some idea of what they are doing."

    In a Capitol Hill press conference, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pointed to the success of the U.S. Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. At the state government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also has an excellent record of hiring Persons with No Ability (63 percent).

    Under the Americans with No Abilities Act, more than 25 million mid-level positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance.

    Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations that promote a significant number of Persons of Inability (POI) into middle-management positions, and give a tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires.

    Finally, the Americans with No Abilities Act contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the non-abled, banning, for example, discriminatory interview questions such as, "Do you have any skills or experience that relate to this job?"

    "As a non-abled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them," said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, Mich., due to her inability to remember righty tighty, lefty loosey. "This new law should be real good for people like me. I'll finally have job security." With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens will finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

    Said Sen. Dick Durbin, II: "As a senator with no abilities, I believe the same privileges that elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to every American with no abilities. It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her inadequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation and a good salary for doing so."

    This message was approved by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama.





    Share/Bookmark

    Thursday, December 4, 2014

    Texas, 16 other states sue to stop Obama amnesty




    There was furor by the bucket full before Barry decreed amnesty. After he did seemingly no one batted an eye... until now.  I am hopeful a lot of other states jump on the bandwagon. Maybe we could ultimately get 25 to 30. That said, how long will it be before a decision is rendered? Judging by the last line in this article it doesn't look promising. To put it in perspective should it go to the SC ObamaCare was signed into law March 2010 and the SC did not rule it Constitutional until June 2012 by a 5-4 decision. Unless Barry passes another executive order he'll be out of office.

    A few days ago in yet another blowup he said this, 'He took an action to change the law.' His administration has chalked this one up to "he was speaking colloquially." How much more lying bullshit can this country tolerate?
    -------------------------------




    Seventeen states and governors sued the Homeland Security Department on Wednesday in a bid to halt President Obama's new deportation amnesty, saying he violated the Constitution and broke federal laws by granting tentative legal status to millions of illegal immigrants.

    "This lawsuit is not about immigration. It is about the rule of law, presidential power and the structural limits of the U.S. Constitution," the governors said in a 75-page complaint, filed in federal district court in Texas.

    The governors said they have standing to sue because they and their state taxpayers will be left on the hook for expenses related to schooling, health care and police to handle the extra illegal immigrants who will now have federal permission to stay in the U.S., despite having no permanent lawful status.

    And the plaintiffs carefully chose the court where they filed their challenge, selecting Brownsville, Texas, where a judge last year wrote a scathing rebuke of the Homeland Security Department for aiding human smugglers.

    Mr. Obama's unilateral immigration action, announced Nov. 20, would grant tentative status and work permits to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants, and would remove many others from any danger of deportation — though they would not have the same legal status as those officially granted the amnesty.

    The policy has proved controversial, and Republicans in Congress are searching for ways to try to block Mr. Obama from following through on his plans.

    GOP-led states, meanwhile, had vowed to go to the courts. Wednesday's lawsuit was led by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.

    The lawsuit repeatedly uses Mr. Obama's own words against him, pointing to the nearly two-dozen times he said he didn't have the power to take the actions he took.



    I can't do it but then I did.
    The brain dead behind him applaud and rejoice in loosing their liberty.

    Video 100

    And in one critical attack, the lawsuit points to Mr. Obama's own claim last week that he "took an action to change the law."

    "In this case, the president admitted that he 'took an action to change the law.' The defendants could hardly contend otherwise because a deferred action program with an acceptance rate that rounds to 100 percent is a de facto entitlement — one that even the president and OLC previously admitted would require a change to the law," the challengers said in their complaint.

    At the White House on Tuesday, press secretary Josh Earnest tried to walk back Mr. Obama's law-changing comment, saying the president was trying to speak to the level of his audience in Chicago at the time.



    "I think he was speaking colloquially," Mr. Earnest said.

    (They have his ass covered for everything don't they? So what was he speaking when he said, "You can keep your insurance period, no matter what"?)

    The spokesman went on to say that while the president didn't change the law, his actions did change the way the law affects millions of people. "I think that's what the president was alluding to," Mr. Earnest said.

    Legal analysts have heatedly debated whether Mr. Obama's actions are legal, with the Justice Department saying while it's the biggest claim of prosecutorial discretion in history, the same moves were done on a smaller scale by previous Republican presidents.

    However it's not even clear the courts will take the case. Judges have routinely rejected challenges to presidential actions by finding that plaintiffs can't show a specific injury, and thus don't have standing to sue.

    -------------------------------------------------


    Don't you just love people coming here illegally then claiming the "land" as their own?









    Share/Bookmark

    Ferguson... the perfect head fake




    As a nation we are just consumed by the tragic loss of Michael Brown and the canonization of our beloved St Swisher. 



    Then Barry grants illegal amnesty and no one bats an eye. 




    Meanwhile no one takes notice of this little triviality.
    (Gotta love the last line)

    ----------------------------------------------------------


    U.S. DEBT HITS $18,000,000,000,000.00

    U.S. debt has now surpassed $18 trillion. 

    Under President Barack Obama, America's debt has skyrocketed 70%. 

    On the day Obama took office, January 21, 2009, Zero Hedge reports U.S. debt stood at $10.625 trillion. The national debt cleared $18 trillion for the first time on Black Friday. 

    In March, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that the Obama U.S. debt explosion would result in interest payments on U.S. debt quadrupling by 2024 to a stratospheric $880 billion a year, a sum 105 times bigger than the FBI's budget. 

    Still, Obama contends his economic policies have been a boon to America. 

    "By every economic measure, we are better off now than when I took office," said Obama in October.

    -------------------------------------------------------------





    Remember Barry in 2008. The debt was $10.6 trillion. Nothing to brag about.


    Video 99


    So if Bush was irresponsible and unpatriotic what does that make Barry at
    $18,000,000,000,000.00









    Share/Bookmark