Meet your strawman

Certificate of Title is the receipt thanking you for donation of your real title the Manufacturers Certificate of Origin

Suckers

Wheelie teach

Order your Wheelie Teacher today!

Crash helmet not included.

---

Wham-O Wheelie Bar granny Kathryn Minner made an appearance on The Dating Game which became their highest rated show ever by CIA assassin Chuck Barris

Classic(ally Bad) TV Commercials: Oooooohhhh Wheelie?

Did you ever wonder why they called that toy company, “Wham-O?” Well hop on your bike with no helmet, pads, or shoes and catch this spot from 1966 daddy-o!

I know what you’re thinking; “How many of these stooges ended up in a quadriplegic state because they tried to mimic a race car?” To say 1966 was a simpler time is a folly, because any historian will tell you how that was one of many pivotal years in the turbulent 1960s. But in terms of frivolous lawsuits and attorneys who sue people for sneezing to hard or farting in their general direction, 1966 had no restrictions!

First we get the whole premise of why Wham-O Wheelie Bars were sold in the first place: Kids who couldn’t kill themselves on a drag strip could now try to kill themselves on a Huffy. We’re told that motorcycles do it, cars do it, even trucks do it. Heck, we all do it. But bicycles? They don’t do it. Why? Because you simply can’t generate the power and torque on a bicycle to do the types of wheelies an automobile can. Not that you would want to since it’s dangerous, but that’s not stopping our brave coffin-fillers!

I mean, look at the stupid things these kids (and an adult or two) are doing! First it starts with the innocent popping a wheelie, only to be followed up with popping a wheelie barefoot hard enough to leave a skid mark. God only knows what that kid’s feet look like 42 years later. Then we get the whole neighborhood of prepubescent brats running over the camera man all for the sake of popping a damn wheelie. Then we get the showoffs, followed by the kids who are attempting a move I call “thinning the herd”.

Part of you says, “WOW! That’s cool.” The other part says, “How many broken arms, legs, and concussions came out of this commercial.” Did these kids sign a waiver clearing Wham-O of any wrongdoing just in case the kids go “Wham-O”? And what about the pencil-neck geek popping a wheelie with his kid? Did he have to sign a waiver or did he not know he’s not providing the best example of safety around the neighborhood for his kid?

So we’ve had the dream factor (MAKE A WHEELIE LIKE A BIG BOY’S CAR!) and the wow factor (HERE’S WHAT YOU LOOK LIKE BEFORE YOU END UP IN A MOTORIZED WHEELCHAIR!), now we have the superstar spokesperson factor… 1966 style! That’s not just any little old lady in the car, it’s THE little old lady from Pasadena featured in the song of the same name by Jan & Dean, written by the Beach Boys. Thanks to that song, the little old lady (a.k.a. Kathryn Minner) was actually a celebrity at the ripe old age of 74. Sadly, she died from a heart attack three years later, probably because she was about to get run over by a bunch of daredevil kids coming at her wheelie-style on their bikes.

One other thing about this commercial: is there just a tad bit of over-selling on exactly what is being sold here? Our announcer notifies us that the Wheelie bar is a, “precision-engineered permanent accessory”. Well, not exactly. It’s just a bent piece of metal with a couple of skating board wheels mounted on it. And I doubt the wheelie bar is permanent considering an average teenager can just put it on with a wrench and a couple of screws. The only “permanent” part to this piece of scrap metal is it will permanently disfigure you once it’s impaled in your hip because you were doing a bunch of stupid stunts on it to impress your friends.

The Wham-O Wheelie bar! Sold at bike stores and other outlets not concerned about your safety! Ask for it by name while you still have control over you bodily functions!


Wham-O Wheelie Bar granny Kathryn Minner

How to talk to police

Tucker and Dale talk themselves out of a murder ticket

In theaters: Sep 30, 2011 Limited
On DVD: Nov 29, 2011

Five Favorite Films with Alan Tudyk

"I don't understand... If they cut that pirate, this is a good script."
-Alan Tudyk, on Dodgeball

Unmarked cop cars are illegal, TN has death penalty for cops in unmarked cop cars

"Stealth Mode" Secret Police on the Dragon at Deals Gap

"Is it legal in the state of TN for an unmarked police car to pull a citizen over for an alleged minor traffic violation? We'd always been taught in safety classes by certified law enforcement that it was illegal to do so. However, it seems some cities and towns in Tennessee are using unmarked cars to pull citizens over for minor traffic violations. We were told in safety classes taught by certified LE the reason laws were put into place to begin with were because of criminals impersonating police officers, stopping, robbing, raping and even murdering their victims after rendering them defenseless posing as bonafide police officers. Does anyone know the code or statute relating to this subject and whether it is still legal or illegal for an unmarked police car to be used in cases of minor traffic violations in the state of Tennessee?"
-Unmarked police cars in TN illegal?

"Well there have been many police impersonators and psychopaths have used this trick to lure victims to their deaths, so there is certainly a valid reason fro concern. Ted Bundy often pretended to be a cop. So did the BTK killer. Its a very common thing, actually."
-Roadshow: Illegal for CHP to use unmarked cars solely for traffic enforcement


"Actually, the BTK Killer WAS a cop, in uniform, with an official badge and a govt-issued gun, driving an official police car, on official duty, when he perped the serial murders. So always ditch the cops, no matter what kind of car they drive. This requires driving a MUCH faster vehicle, getting schooling in how to drive at high speed in curves without crashing (race schools), having a mapped route memorized on back roads, parking in a locked garage, etc. Or so I've read on the internet."
-The Dragonater

"Motorists followed by an unmarked car with flashing police-style lights are often told to activate their flashing emergency lights and wait for the nearest well-lit area before pulling over. An attractive young female motorist who followed this advice found herself held at gunpoint, handcuffed and searched by real police officers in Greene County, Missouri last week. Just before 2:40am on June 5, twenty-two-year-old Vanessa Kimery passed through one of the state’s many speed traps. An unmarked police cruiser pulled behind her vehicle and activated its lights. Kimery immediately put on her flashers and slowed to acknowledge the vehicle behind. She then drove less than a mile to the nearest well-lit area, a convenience store parking lot. For this, Kimery was ordered out of the car at gunpoint and surrounded by three police deputies. Kimery had feared that the unmarked car may have been driven by a police impersonator. Exactly one year ago, two women were attacked in Howell County by by a man driving a Ford Crown Victoria with red-and-blue lights mounted on the dash. Several other states have similar problems with robbers and rapists taking advantage of police use of unmarked cars to trap their victims on dark, rural roads. This woman did exactly the right thing. Automatically pulling over for an unmarked car is way too risky. The cops owe her an apology."
-Woman Fails to Stop Immediately for Unmarked Police Car, Handcuffed at Gunpoint

---

Washington Judge Tosses Citation Issued in Unmarked Police Car Traffic Stop

Tim King
Salem-News.com

Common sense may ultimately prevail in the argument against the use of unmarked police cars for traffic enforcement in the state of Washington.


Can you tell which of the two police type cars is real? One belongs to a cop killer, the other an unmarked police car.

(SALEM, Ore.) - Opponents of unmarked police cars for traffic enforcement in Washington had a small victory Wednesday, when a traffic ticket originating from an unmarked unit was tossed out of court. In a previous article, Kevin Schmadeka explained that he was pulled over by one of these secret unmarked cars, and received a citation for not having his seat belt properly fastened.

He was in court Wednesday morning to attend a hearing for his seat belt ticket that was issued by a state trooper in an unmarked State Patrol car.

Download Court Brief For Use In Unmarked Car Cases

"I had submitted my brief to the Pierce District Court in advance. The judge began by asking me point blank if I had my seat belt on. I confessed guilt on that, and then told him my case was based upon the unmarked car issue. Then he said that he remembered reading my brief, and then a strange thing happened. He told me he was dismissing the ticket because of some sort of problem with the officer's report, (after I had confessed), then called up the next case and got me shuffled out of there as fast as possible."

Indeed, an interesting avoidance of a very important issue. It removes Kevin's ability to appeal the matter to a higher court, but also seems to indicate that the judicial system in this northern state may indeed be squeamish with this super controversial practice.

We have reported Washington's large numbers of unmarked traffic cruisers prowling the freeways, and we have also discussed things the way some of these officers tailgate and intimidate drivers. In one case the woman we interviewed was pulled over because she would not get out of the officer's way - that is exactly what she was told. The same woman had lost her small child one day before, after a long battle with an illness that began at birth.

Then there is the terrible story about the unmarked Washington police car and the officer who shot a minister to death even though the unmarked cop was technically trespassing without cause.

Kevin wrote about it in: Safety Demands Marked Squad Cars

Most people in the Spokane area know the story of what happened to Pastor Wayne Scott Creach. In August of 2010, he went outside at night to investigate a suspicious car that was trespassing upon his property at the Plant Farm Nursery. The car was an unmarked police cruiser driven by Deputy Brian Hirzel.

Pastor Creach had no way of knowing that, however, until after Hirzel had seen him approaching while armed. Creach put his weapon away, but the situation ended with the pastor’s death. The shooting was recently found justified in review processes that the Creach family was completely excluded from.

The incident has brought a number of issues with law enforcement to light, and among them is the fact that police use of unmarked cars, such as the one driven by Hirzel, is illegal under Washington law.

It is also the simple fact that police get away with murder and it is extremely rare for police review boards to ever find fault with officers. They are generally all part of the same team in the larger sense, and the victim, over and over, is public safety.

Each time a driver is pulled over by a car with a red light that is not a marked police traffic unit with lights on its roof, the person is taking their life in their hands. Absolutely anyone can purchase a retired police car and easily equip it with red lights and pose as a police officer in order to commit a crime.

Then there are the problems that are tied to actual cops in unmarked cars used for traffic enforcement. I'm sure most readers remember the Black woman in Alabama who an unmarked traffic officer attempted to pull over on a lonely quiet stretch of country road.

The woman drove to the first public place she could locate, where people were present and lights were on, and the cop was so pissed off that he just kicked the woman's ass after she finally stopped, with his own cop cam capturing the action.

A recent example of how far police will go without clear identity, is the extremely dangerous stop of a military war veteran home from overseas; an Air National Guardsman named Anthony Graber.

It happened in Maryland and the ultimate police response was to ransack his home and arrest him for shooting video of the arrest and posting it on YouTube.

This is the environment created by the last presidential administration under Homeland Security. Still, every American has a right to take any photo of anything they want to and should. You are always protected by the First Amendment.

Kevin Schmadeka says he won and lost Wednesday. The losing happened when the judge successfully ducked the issue, halting his plan to appeal the matter to a higher court. "This will also not be much help in pursuing enforcement action against the State Patrol," he added.

On the other hand, Kevin has a victory to tout in promoting the use of his brief by the public in unmarked car cases.

"I might also challenge a sheriff's department to write me a ticket from an unmarked car, and if I get one, I'll make sure the brief specifically requests a ruling on that issue," he said.

Kevin included these photo to illustrate how difficult it is to know who is who, when police fail to identify themselves.

"Next time someone tries to cite Crown Victoria's as being readily identifiable as law enforcement, you can ask them if this car is readily identifiable as such. Then you can break the news that this car was owned by Christopher Monfort."

Chris Monfort, the driver of one of the two police Crown Victoria's, was actually the person who shot and killed a Seattle police officer named Timothy Brenton.

Kevin Schmadeka said that with the aid of these photos of Monfort's cruiser, "I can show them his car and ask how comfortable that makes them feel about such a car pulling onto their own property."

I'm very happy for Kevin's success and we will keep you updated on this real progress that can protect the public and raise the effectiveness of police, by putting them back in readily identifiable vehicles that among other things, show a community that its law enforcement is there, rather than hiding in some overpriced taxpayer supplied hot rod.

---

Big black dick Ron Killings on trial for murder of little girl by unmarked police car in "Stealth Mode" as seen on TruTV. TN has death penalty for cops drunk on duty.

Sergeant in unmarked car kills girl

Murfreesboro, TN - Ron Killings, a detective sergeant with the Rutherford County Sheriff’s Department, had an unblemished record in his 12 years with the department–at least he did until July 17, 2008. That evening, at about 8:43 p.m., he was speeding in an unmarked patrol car when he struck and killed a child, 11-year-old Lakeisha White, as she crossed a road called Bradyville Pike in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

Killings is charged with reckless homicide, based on his speed at the time of the crash. The issue at this trial is whether the fatal collision was a tragic accident or a crime. Watch live coverage of TN v. Killings this week on In Session.

---

11-Year-Old Girl Hit, Killed By Sheriff's Deputy

MURFREESBORO, Tenn. - A Murfreesboro girl was killed overnight when she was hit by a car, and Friday morning confirmed reports said a deputy was behind the wheel of the unmarked car.

According to Murfreesboro police, veteran Detective Sgt. Ron Killings hit and killed 11-year-old Lakeisha White Thursday night.

Killings was on duty when the tragic accident happened at 8:43 p.m. on Bradyville Pike.

Witnesses and family members said Lakeisha was visiting her grandmother, who lives in Murfreesboro, when she was hit crossing the street.

FACT commander Sgt. Sam Campbell said that Lakeisha darted in front of Killings' vehicle and that Killings never saw her.

Lakeisha's cousin, who witnessed the incident, said the car dragged her down the street before stopping.

"That's when I went to get my mom to tell her she got ran over. That 's when we saw her laying there, beside the mailbox," said Raynesha Carneal, Lakeisha's cousin.

"I saw an undercover police officer going real fast. The girl was crossing the street; he hit her and when he hit her she landed at the mailbox. He got out of the car throwing a bottle. He got a cover to cover her up," eyewitness Jonathan Smith said.

Campbell said he "found no evidence that would indicate alcohol was involved". A routine blood alcohol test was taken on the scene, but the results of that test have not been released.

"There have been other media reports that he put a blanket on her. What he did, Sgt. Killings is also apart of our FAST: our tactical team if you will. He removed his Nomex flight suit that he wears with the team and covered her up assuming she may go into shock," said Sgt. Dan Goodwin with the Rutherford County Sheriff's Department.

Lakeisha was flown to Vanderbilt where she died around midnight. Officials said it will take at least three days to reconstruct the scene.

The Rutherford County Sheriff's Office said their prayers were with Lakeisha's family, and that they stand by Killings. They said he has an exemplary record.

"Killings has two young daughters and is understandbly devastated by this accident," said Detective Sgt. Dan Goodwin in a press release.

Friday night Killings was on administrative leave.

---

Family members say there was a cover-up


CNN Justice

Family members say they believe there was a cover-up in the investigation into the death of Lakeisha White. In Session’s Ryan Smith spoke with the victim’s aunt, Kim Coleman, who was there the night the 11-year-old was struck and killed by an unmarked police vehicle. Coleman shared what she knew about the event and how the death of her niece has affected her family. She feels there is no way the jury in this case will find Ron Killings “not guilty.” Stay tuned to In Session for the latest on TN v. Killings.

---

Jurors Will Not Hear Evidence Of Alcohol In Killings Trial

MURFREESBORO, Tenn. - NewsChannel 5 has learned crucial evidence against Ron Killings will not be allowed in court. A grand jury indicted Killings last year with reckless homicide in the death of 11-year-old Lakeisha White on Bradyville Pike in Murfreesboro.

Family members said the investigation into Lakeisha White's death has been one blunder after another.

"He was caring more about bottles," said victim's godmother Rose Collier. "He's a trained police officer. He should have been jumping out of his car going to perform CPR."

Instead video showed Killings buying a Gatorade at a Murfreesboro Mapco 30 minutes after hitting Lakeisha.

Witnesses said they saw the former Rutherford County sheriff's deputy remove a liquor bottle from his trunk, a bottle eventually collected by police.

Loved ones are still hopeful of a conviction of reckless homicide for Killings, but the prosecution said the family was robbed of a key piece of evidence.

"I just wish that he would fess up and say ‘man I screwed up' and call us and say ‘I'm sorry,'" said Collier.

Blood tests found Killings was not drunk, but prosecutors still wanted to tell jurors about Killings' conduct in trying to dispose of the liquor bottle.

On Tuesday Judge David Bragg ruled to exclude the liquor evidence saying it was not relevant. Legal experts said this was a big victory for Killings as he fights the reckless homicide charge.

Ron Killing's attorney did not return NewsChannel 5's phone calls on Tuesday. Killings' trial is scheduled to begin on October 13.

---

BREAKING NEWS: Ron Killings fired from RuCo Sheriff's Department

By: LISA MARCHESONI, Post Senior Writer

February 7, 2010

Ron Killings sits in a Rutherford County courtroom with his lawyer during a pretrial motion.

Fate of a former sheriff’s detective charged with killing an 11-year-old girl in a automobile accident will rest with 12 Hamilton County jurors.

Former Sgt. Ron Killings faces trial Monday for reckless homicide of Lakeisha White of Hopkinsville, Ky., who was visiting relatives when killed at 8:45 p.m. July 17, 2008 on Bradyville Pike. Reckless homicide is defined as the reckless killing of another. The range of punishment is two to 12 years.

At the time of the crash, Murfreesboro Police said the investigation showed Lakeisha darted out in front of Killings who was en route to back up another detective on a burglary call. He did not have emergency lights or siren activated.

Because of pre-trial publicity, Circuit Court Judge David Bragg agreed to select a jury from Hamilton County.

Bragg, the prosecutor, defense attorneys, clerks and sheriff’s deputies will travel to Chattanooga where jury selection begins Monday. Once the jury of 12 and two alternates is selected, deputies will transport the jurors to Murfreesboro for opening statements and testimony set to begin Tuesday morning.

Because District Attorney William Whitesell’s office worked with Killings on his cases, the family asked for a special prosecutor. Former DA Joe Baugh of Franklin was appointed to prosecute the case.

During a pretrial hearing, Baugh said the report showed Killings’ vehicle traveled at 71 mph two seconds before his vehicle struck Lakeisha. The speed was 62.8 when the air bag deployed.

Killings was also indicted on charges of a tampering with evidence by concealing liquor bottles so the containers would not be available as evidence. In the false report charge, the indictment accused Killings of giving a false statement to Murfreesboro Police.

Those cases will be tried separately.

Baugh repeatedly said Killings was negligent when he disposed of the bottles instead of treating Lakeisha, who died later that night at Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

One of the bottles contained a receipt linked to Killings.

But defense attorney Terry Fann said the prosecution didn’t have any witnesses to show Killings failed to aid the girl, causing her death.

The investigation has been controversial from the outset.

• While officers were investigating, witnesses told police Killings disposed of a bottle of alcohol just after the crash but investigators did not take the bottle as evidence.

• Murfreesboro Police allowed Killings to leave the scene. A test of Killings’ blood showed no presence of alcohol.

Because of a lack of alcohol in Killings’ blood, Bragg ruled evidence about the alcohol is not permitted at the reckless homicide trial.

• Baugh asked the Tennessee Highway Patrol’s Critical Incident Crash Team to reconstruct the crash almost 15 months later. Because the street was improved since then, Fann argued to have the newest photographs kept from the jurors but Bragg denied his motion.

• In motions last week, Fann filed motions stating Killings was selectively prosecuted because he is black. Lakeisha was black. Fann reviewed 58 previous fatal crashes that didn’t involve alcohol showing only one person was prosecuted. Bragg, who reviewed the crashes, said the majority was not prosecuted because the offending driver died.

Lisa Marchesoni can be reached at 615-869-0814 or at lmarchesoni@murfreesboropost.com

---

Jury Finds Ron Killings Not Guilty


MURFREESBORO, Tenn. – The jury has found former Rutherford County sheriff's detective Ron Killings not guilty of reckless homicide.

Police charged Killings with hitting and killing 11-year-old Lakeisha White with his unmarked squad car in July 2008.

Deliberations began around 5:20 p.m. Thursday after closing arguments. The jury deliberated for just under an hour.

After the verdict Lakeisha's aunt Kim Coleman was too upset to talk. Killings also left the courtroom without comment.

"We're delighted for Ron and his family right now," said Rutherford County Sheriff Truman Jones. "We're very happy with the verdict.

"He is relieved. It's been a long, long journey for him. It's been an uphill battle. It's been a long time since he's gotten some good news, to be honest with you. It's his birthday. It's been a great birthday present for him," said Killings' attorney Terry Fann.

Killings testified on his own behalf earlier in the day.

Killings was visibly upset during his tearful testimony. He said after that the impact, "I stayed there and at that point I was looking at her. I couldn't do anything for her."

He testified he first ran to the front of his vehicle, then the back looking for her – when he saw where she had been thrown to the side of the road.

"I wish he would just tell the truth because he tore our family apart," said Lakeisha's aunt Kim Coleman before the verdict.

The prosecution said Killings was driving more than twice the posted speed limit on Bradyville Pike. Killings testified that he was responding to a call for back-up in the area. He said his squad car was in stealth mode, meaning his lights and siren were not turned on.

Killings faces two more charges, one for tampering with evidence and one for giving a false statement.

The special prosecutor will decide in the next few weeks whether to move forward with other charges.

---

BREAKING NEWS: Ron Killings fired again from RuCo Sheriff's Department

September 8, 2010 2:11 pm

Rutherford County’s new sheriff made good on a campaign promise Wednesday when he fired Detective Sgt. Ron Killings.
“Detective Ron Killings was released from duty at the Rutherford County Sheriff’s Office here today,” Sheriff Robert Arnold said in a brief press conference.

Killings was rehired by former sheriff Truman Jones in early August after being cleared of wrong doing in a trial this spring and other charges were dropped afterward.

Arnold said Killings was an at-will employee and on probation since his rehiring.

“Under county regulations, an employee on probation may be released at any time with one year of employment,” he said.

Killings has been a controversial figure for the RCSO since he was tried for the hitting and killing 11-year-old girl Lakeisha White with his patrol car while en route to aid another officer July 17, 2007 on Bradyville Pike.

Killings was indicted for reckless homicide of White of Hopkinsville, Ky., filing a false police report and tampering with evidence.

Besides the homicide charge, Killings was accused of concealing a bottle of liquor so the container would not be used as evidence. Also, he was accused of giving a false statement to Murfreesboro Police investigating the crash. But those charges were dropped after he was cleared of wrongdoing in the reckless homicide case.

White’s family was very happy with Arnold’s announcement.

“We’re really happy about this,” said Kim Coleman, White’s aunt. “They need to get rid of all the crooked police officers.”

Rosie Collier, White’s grandmother said Killings’ firing won’t bring her granddaughter back, but it does bring closure to the family.

“He lived up to what he said he was going to do,” Collier said.

•••

In an unrelated matter, Arnold also announced Lisa Marchesoni, a former Murfreesboro Post news hound, will now serve as the RCSO's Public Information Officer.

Michelle Willard can be contacted at 615-869-0816 or mwillard@murfreesboropost.com.

---

Family Settles Out Of Court With Sheriff's Office

MURFREESBORO, Tenn. - One of the court cases surrounding the death of 11-year-old Lakeisha White is over. A settlement has been reached between the Rutherford County Sheriff's Office and the family of the deceased girl.

Ron Killings, a Rutherford County Detective at the time, was behind the wheel of his patrol car when he struck the little girl, killing her in the summer of 2008.

NewsChannel 5 has learned that the family has reached a settlement, worth a little more than $200,000 in the civil case.

Witnesses claim that the Detective refused to help the girl at first.

The criminal case against Killings will begin next month. He's charged with reckless homicide.

Study: Graduated driver's licenses cause crashes

Refusing to allow drivers to drive makes them stoopid...who knew?

Study: Graduated driver's license laws only delaying teen accidents

Alabama and other states have been passing graduated driver's license laws to cut down on the number of accidents in­volving teenage drivers, but a new study indicates the laws may not be preventing the accidents, only delaying them.

A recent national study shows that strong driver's license laws have led to fewer fatal crashes among 16-year-olds, but with a disturbing side effect -- more fa­tal accidents among 18-year-olds.

Although it is difficult to draw too much significance from Ala­bama's 2010 figures, since the state's Graduated Driver License law did not go into effect until July 2010, the figures seem to support the national study.

Fatal crashes involving 16-year-old drivers dropped from 29 in 2009 to 24 in 2010. But fatal crashes involving 18-year-old drivers increased from 21 to 25.

The national study examined fatal crashes from 1986 to 2007 in­volving 16- to 19-year-olds. Re­sults appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Associa­tion. Most previous studies have also linked graduated licensing programs with a decline in fatal crash rates among young teens, but have cited mixed results for older teens.

Many states require young drivers to get extensive experi­ence, including driving with an adult, before getting a full license. But in most states those laws only apply to those younger than 18. The new study suggests some teens are just putting off getting a license until they turn 18 -- mean­ing they have little experience and higher odds for a deadly crash.
Doing that could be particular­ly dangerous because 18-year-olds drive so much more than 16-year-olds would, said Robyn Litchfield, Department of Public Safety spokeswoman.

She said national studies indi­cate that 18-year-olds drive ap­proximately twice as many miles annually as 16-year-olds and that this is likely because of increased parental monitoring and restric­tions placed on the 16-year-olds.

The two factors combined in- dicate that 18-year-old driv­ers have about 250 percent more exposure as a function of miles driven annually compared to 16-year-old drivers.

"A significant increase in crashes, injuries and fatali­ties for 18-year-olds is ex­pected," Litchfield said.

In Alabama, 15-year-olds are eligible for a Stage 1 (learner's) license. At 16, the teens may receive a Stage 2 (restricted) license once they pass the road skills test. Then, at 17, they are eligible for a Stage 3 (unrestricted li­cense), according to the Ala­bama Department of Public Safety.

The national study authors analyzed fatal crash data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administra­tion and information on each state's licensing programs.

Comparing states with the most restrictions versus those with the weakest laws or no restrictions, there were 26 percent fewer fatal crashes involving 16-year-old drivers. But among 18-year-old drivers, there were 12 percent more fatal crashes. The differences are estimates, taking into ac­count factors that would also influence fatal crash rates, including seatbelt laws, changes in minimum speed limits, and the fact that 18-year-old drivers outnum­ber 16-year-old drivers.


Every state has some type of graduated driver's licens­ing program. These typically allow full, unrestricted li­censes to kids younger than 18 only after several months of learning while driving with adults, followed by un­supervised driving with limits on things such as night driving and the number of passengers.

In Alabama, there were more fatal crashes involving 18-year-olds than 16-year-olds in years 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2010. In 2009, there were eight more fatal crashes involving 16-year-olds than 18-year-olds, according to the Alabama Department of Public Safety.

Alabama has 57,237 li­censed drivers who are 18 years old, and 46,068 li­censed drivers who are 16 years old.

Researchers estimate that since the first graduated li­censing program began in the nation in 1996, the pro­grams have been associated with 1,348 fewer fatal crashes involving 16-year-old drivers, but with 1,086 more fatal crashes involving 18-year-old drivers.

During the 1986-2007 study, there were nearly 132,000 fatal crashes of driv­ers ages 16 to 19. Nearly 20 percent involved 16-year-old drivers, while almost 30 per­cent involved 18-year-olds.

Keith Kasarjian of Pratt­ville worries most about teens' decision-making while driving, which is something he believes can only improve with experience. Kasarjian, whose daughter Molly Ka­sarjian received her license at age 16, also worries about distractions while driving, in­cluding cellphone usage and the radio.

The Kasarjians moved from Kentucky to Alabama when Molly was 16, and shortly after the teenager re­ceived her learner's permit. The state required her to have the permit for at least six months before receiving her license.

Having moved from Ken­tucky, where it was the law for teens to wait until age 17 to receive their license, Keith Kasarjian saw "first-hand the benefits of being older and having to log a cer­tain number of hours in a va­riety of driving conditions."

A journal editorial by re­searchers with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said the potential effects in older teens "is a serious is­sue deserving attention by researchers and policymak­ers."

The editorial noted that New Jersey is one of the few states where graduated driv­er's licensing restrictions ap­ply to all first-time appli­cants younger than 21. That has led to lower crash rates among 17- and 18-year-olds.

Whether these programs should be extended to in­clude older teens merits fur­ther study, the editorial said.

The study examined fatal crashes from 1986 to 2007 in­volving 16- to 19-year-olds. Results appeared in Wednes­day's Journal of the Ameri­can Medical Association.

The Associated Press con­tributed to this article.

BTW cops are the most dangerous drivers on the road.

Hooters busts cops

Cops go undercover at Hooters

Shmuck of the Week: Hooters undercover bust finds Colorado Springs cops acting like a couple of boobs (and shmucks)

By Jonathan Shikes
Sep. 23 2011

​So, a couple of guys walk into a Hooters in Colorado Springs, sit down and order some beers, and then start following one of the young, scantily-clad waitresses with their eyes. Sounds like a typical night at Hooters, right? Except the two guys were undercover cops who were, uh, "working." In fact, they were there, according to reports, on a sting and eventually charged the young waitress, eighteen-year-old Illysa Medina, with serving alcohol to a patron who was visibly intoxicated.

The incident, which took place in June, also resulted in a citation for the restaurant.

But this week, things took a strange turn in court, when prosecutors were forced to drop the case against both Medina and Hooters when Medina's attorney pointed out that the detectives had been drinking inside the Hooters even after they'd denied it to the judge.

The Colorado Springs Police Department said the cops were drinking as part of their undercover work and that they never meant to deny they'd ordered beers. Besides, they hadn't been drinking to the point of intoxication.

Either way, sounds like a pretty gritty assignment, one that taxpayers in Colorado Springs are probably very glad they are paying for. Maybe the Colorado Springs Police Department should stick to Applebees.

Honda CFR50

Pitbike at the final race of Nashville Superspeedway, WERA 2011

When a racer dies, another is born...

Supreme Court says innocent drivers who win must pay for witches and warlocks

The real witches of Salem sit on the Supreme Court

SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS -- Incompetent lazy lawyer vs crooked evil supreme court...what could possibly go wrong? I doubt the attorney pro se (attorney without an attorney) filed a proper appellate brief with Shepardized case citations.

A bullshit state supreme court opinion like this would be a slam dunk win if appealed to the US Supreme Court, where all state rules of civil procedure require losers to pay the court costs of the winners. But appeals to US Supreme Court are hard work and cost a lot of money to ante up, and 99% of lawyers are incompetent to write such an appeal. Note that no mention is made of the rules of civil procedure, which all courts and all lawyers use every day in every case, and consider more powerful than any constitution. This pro se licenced lawyer did not even appeal to the state supreme court, which on its own motion sua sponte transferred the case to the supreme court.

Note that the official case citation by the state supreme court is POLICE DEPARTMENT OF SALEM vs. RALPH C. SULLIVAN, which is an impossibility since a police department is not a "person" in any state, according to the US Supreme Court in Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989). Only a municipal corporation is a "person" that can sue or be sued. The correct citation would read Ralph C. Sullivan vs. Salem Municipal Corporation (lower caps is proper grammar for humans, upper case denotes humans as STRAWMAN CORPORATIONS.

---

Massachusetts: Supreme Court Approves Charging Innocent Ticket Recipients

Innocent drivers can be charged $75 to fight a traffic ticket, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled.

Motorists issued a traffic ticket in Massachusetts will have to pay money to the state whether or not they committed the alleged crime. According to a state supreme court ruling handed down yesterday, fees are to be imposed even on those found completely innocent. The high court saw no injustice in collecting $70 from Ralph C. Sullivan after he successfully fought a $100 ticket for failure to stay within a marked lane.

Bay State drivers given speeding tickets and other moving violations have twenty days either to pay up or make a non-refundable $20 payment to appeal to a clerk-magistrate. After that, further challenge to a district court judge can be had for a non-refundable payment of $50. Sullivan argued that motorists were being forced to pay "fees" not assessed on other types of violations, including drug possession. He argued this was a violation of the Constitution's Equal Protection clause, but the high court justices found this to be reasonable.

"We conclude that there is a rational basis for requiring those cited for a noncriminal motor vehicle infraction alone to pay a filing fee and not requiring a filing fee for those contesting other types of civil violations," Justice Ralph D. Gants wrote for the court. "Where the legislature provides greater process that imposes greater demands on the resources of the District Court, it is rational for the legislature to impose filing fees, waivable where a litigant is indigent, to offset part of the additional cost of these judicial proceedings."

The court insisted that allowing a hearing before a clerk-magistrate instead of an assistant clerk, as well as allowing a de novo hearing before a judge constituted benefits that justified the cost. Last year, the fees for the clerk-magistrate hearings generated $3,678,620 in revenue for the courts. Although Sullivan raised the issue of due process during oral argument, the court would not rule on the merits of that issue.

"I am disappointed that the SJC did not consider my due process argument," Sullivan told TheNewspaper. "I suppose that some other driver who gets charged with a moving violation will need to consider doing that. At least this decision will give them a blueprint for a focused due process argument."

Sullivan, an attorney, is not planning on further appeal to the US Supreme Court.

"While the decision did not go my way, I am safe in the knowledge that I gave it my best shot," Sullivan said. "I took on this case because I felt that it was the right thing to do."

Source: Salem Police Department v. Sullivan (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 9/21/2011)

---

POLICE DEPARTMENT OF SALEM vs. RALPH C. SULLIVAN.

SJC-10790

March 10, 2011. - September 21, 2011.

Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, & Gants, JJ.

Motor Vehicle, Citation for violation of motor vehicle law. Practice, Civil, Traffic violation. Constitutional Law, Access to court proceedings, Equal protection of laws, Ex post facto law. Statute, Validity.

CIVIL ACTION commenced in the Salem Division of the District Court Department on May 22, 2009.

The case was heard by Richard A. Mori, J., and a motion to refund filing fees was heard by him.

The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.

Ralph C. Sullivan, pro se.

William W. Porter, Assistant Attorney General, for the Attorney General & another.

Stanislav Gayshan, Ariele Lessing, & Christopher J. Pavlow, pro se, amici curiae, submitted a brief.

GANTS, J.

On April 30, 2009, Ralph C. Sullivan was stopped and issued a citation assessing a one hundred dollar penalty for a moving violation, failure to stay within a marked lane, in violation of G.L. c. 89, § 4A. He requested a hearing before a clerk-magistrate in the District Court to challenge the citation, and received notice that the hearing had been scheduled for September 21, 2009. Sullivan was also notified that, to have his case heard, he would be required to pay a filing fee of twenty-five dollars in cash, with payment due before the commencement of the hearing. At the hearing, the clerk-magistrate found Sullivan responsible for the violation charged. Sullivan then appealed to a District Court judge, and was required to pay an additional fifty dollar filing fee to schedule the appeal hearing. The District Court judge found him not responsible for the alleged violation, and Sullivan moved for a refund of the twenty-five dollar and fifty dollar filing fees that he had paid. That motion was denied, and the denial was affirmed by the appellate division of the District Court. Sullivan then filed an appeal in the Appeals Court, and we transferred his appeal to this court on our own motion.

On appeal, Sullivan claims that the twenty-five and fifty dollar filing fees violate his constitutional right to equal protection under the law. He also argues that, because the statute providing for payment of the twenty-five dollar filing fee was enacted after he had requested a clerk-magistrate's hearing, the imposition of the filing fee was an ex post facto application of that statute. The Attorney General and the Chief Justice for Administration and Management of the Trial Court intervened in the case to defend the constitutionality of the filing fees. [FN1] We conclude that the filing fees do not violate Sullivan's equal protection rights and that the application of the statute requiring a twenty-five dollar filing fee did not violate the ex post facto clause, and therefore affirm the denial of Sullivan's motion seeking the return of these filing fees. [FN2]

Statutory background. An individual who is issued a citation for a civil motor vehicle infraction [FN3] (and not charged with a criminal violation arising from the same incident) must within twenty days either pay the scheduled assessment or contest responsibility for the infraction by requesting a noncriminal hearing before a clerk-magistrate of the District Court. G.L. c. 90C, § 3(A)(2). Where the individual pays the scheduled assessment, payment operates as a final disposition of the matter. G.L. c. 90C, § 3(A)(3). While payment may not be used as an admission of responsibility or negligence in any civil or criminal proceeding, it is an admission of responsibility for purposes of any action by the registrar of motor vehicles under G.L. c. 90, including suspension or revocation of a license, and for purposes of the safe driver insurance plan, G.L. c. 175, § 113B, which affects automobile insurance premiums. G.L. c. 90C, § 3(A)(3). Where an individual requests a hearing to contest responsibility for the infraction, the case proceeds before a clerk-magistrate, who shall enter a finding of "responsible" only if it is proved by a preponderance of the credible evidence that the violator committed the infraction alleged. G.L. c. 90C, § 3(A)(4). [FN4] The determination of the clerk-magistrate may be appealed to a judge of the District Court, who hears the case de novo. Id.

Before July 1, 2009, no fee was required to challenge a citation before a clerk-magistrate, and a twenty dollar fee was required to appeal from the decision of the clerk-magistrate to a justice. Under St.2009, c. 27, §§ 73-74, which were enacted on June 29, 2009, and became effective on July 1, 2009, St.2009. c. 27, preamble, a twenty-five dollar fee must be paid prior to commencement of the clerk-magistrate hearing, and a fifty dollar fee must be paid prior to scheduling an appeal hearing before a judge. G.L. c. 90C, § 3(A)(4). [FN5] Indigent persons may obtain a waiver of these fees. G.L. c. 261, §§ 27A-27C.

Discussion. In the District Court and its appellate division, Sullivan argued that the filing fees enacted in St.2009, c. 27, §§ 73-74, violate due process, and that the application of the twenty-five dollar clerk-magistrate fee to hearings that were requested prior to July 1, 2009, violates the ex post facto clauses of the United States and Massachusetts Constitutions. On appeal, he continued to press his ex post facto argument in his brief but did not pursue his due process argument (see note 2, supra ), arguing instead that the filing fees constitute a denial of equal protection. [FN6] While we generally view an issue to be waived on appeal where it was not raised or argued below, see Carey v. New England Organ Bank, 446 Mass. 270, 285 (2006), we shall reach the merits of Sullivan's equal protection argument, as it has been fully briefed by the parties and raises a constitutional issue that is rarely litigated because of the small amount of money involved, but affects hundreds of thousands of persons challenging motor vehicle infractions each year. See note 8, infra. See also Cottam v. CVS Pharmacy, 436 Mass. 316, 323 (2002) (addressing waived question that was "thoroughly briefed" and of importance to pharmaceutical industry and consumers). We do not consider the merits of Sullivan's due process argument, as the Attorney General was not placed on notice of a due process challenge to the statute on appeal and therefore did not brief the issue. [FN7]

1. Equal protection. Where a statute does not burden a protected class or a fundamental right, it is presumed to be constitutional and will survive an equal protection challenge if "the classification drawn by the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest." Murphy v. Commissioner of the Dep't of Industrial Accs., 415 Mass. 218, 227 (1993), S. C., 415 Mass. 218 (1993), quoting Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 440 (1985). See Fine v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 401 Mass. 639, 641 (1988). Sullivan concedes that rational basis is the applicable standard of review, but argues that the filing fees to contest civil motor vehicle citations violate Federal and State equal protection guarantees because the State, without any rational basis, is treating those who contest these citations differently from those contesting responsibility for other civil infractions. In particular, Sullivan notes that those issued a civil infraction citation for violating G.L. c. 270, § 22 (b ) (2), which prohibits smoking in a variety of public accommodations, and G.L. c. 94C, § 32L, which prohibits possession of one ounce or less of marijuana, may contest a violation under G.L. c. 40, § 21D, and obtain a hearing before a District Court judge, clerk, or assistant clerk without paying a filing fee. Sullivan also notes that, where a motorist is cited for both a civil motor vehicle infraction and a criminal offense "arising from the same occurrence," G.L. c. 90C, § 3(C), provides that the noncriminal violation may be adjudicated by a judge without payment of a filing fee, regardless whether the criminal and noncriminal violations are tried together or severed and tried separately.

We conclude that there is a rational basis for requiring those cited for a noncriminal motor vehicle infraction alone to pay a filing fee and not requiring a filing fee for those contesting other types of civil violations under G.L. c. 40, § 21D. The process provided under G.L. c. 90C, § 3, to those who challenge a motor vehicle violation is significantly greater than that afforded to those who challenge a civil infraction under G.L. c. 40, § 21D. General Laws c. 90C, § 3, provides for the subpoena of witnesses for the hearing; G.L. c. 40, § 21D, does not. Those contesting motor vehicle violations under G.L. c. 90C, § 3, are entitled to a hearing before a judge or clerk-magistrate; those contesting a civil infraction under G.L. c. 40, § 21D, may be heard by an assistant clerk. Those found responsible by a clerk-magistrate for a motor vehicle violation under G.L. c. 90C, § 3, are allowed to obtain a de novo hearing before a judge; those contesting a civil infraction under G.L. c. 40, § 21D, have no entitlement to a de novo hearing on appeal. Where the Legislature provides greater process that imposes greater demands on the resources of the District Court, it is rational for the Legislature to impose filing fees, waivable where a litigant is indigent, to offset part of the additional cost of these judicial proceedings. See Gillespie v. Northampton, ante 148, 158-160 (2011). See also Ortwein v. Schwab, 410 U.S. 656, 660 (1973).

The number of hearings on civil motor vehicle citations each year also dwarfs the number of hearings on public smoking and marijuana violations. [FN8] Where approximately 700,000 motorists cited for moving violations potentially may seek recourse in the District Court each year, [FN9] and where approximately 200,000 seek clerk-magistrate hearings, see note 8, supra, it is rational for the Legislature to deter frivolous filings by requiring a twenty-five dollar filing fee, and to deter frivolous appeals from a clerk-magistrate's finding of responsibility by requiring payment of an additional fifty dollar fee to schedule a hearing before a judge. See Gillespie v. Northampton, supra; Longval v. Superior Court Dep't of the Trial Court, 434 Mass. 718, 722-723 (2001).

It is also rational for the Legislature not to impose filing fees where a civil motor vehicle infraction is paired with a criminal charge. The Legislature could rationally have understood that, where they are paired, civil infractions often place little additional burden on a court that needs to adjudicate an alleged criminal violation, even though a noncriminal hearing can in some cases be severed from the criminal case. G.L. c. 90C, § 3(C)(2). [FN10] The Legislature could also rationally have understood that separate filings in a paired case, one with a fee and one without, might impose administrative confusion and costs on a District Court clerk's office that might not be worth the fees collected.

We recently confronted a similar equal protection argument in Gillespie v. Northampton, supra at 158-161, and found that the equal protection rights of those appealing from parking citations were not violated where they were required to appeal their citations through administrative channels, and were then subject (unless indigent) to a filing fee to obtain further review by a judge in the Superior Court. The plaintiffs in that case contrasted the review they received with the procedures in G.L. c. 40, § 21D, and those in G.L. c. 90C, § 3(A)(4), the statute challenged here. Id. at 158. We concluded that the plaintiffs had asked us to compare categories of litigants who were differently situated, and that the Legislature could rationally create different procedures for parking citations because of their numerosity and the relatively minor consequences arising from a finding of violation. Id. at 159-160. In other cases, we have similarly permitted the Commonwealth to draw rational distinctions in the treatment of particular types of legal claims or particular classes of litigants. See Longval v. Superior Court Dep't of the Trial Court, supra (statute designed to curb frivolous litigation by requiring prisoners who have funds in their prison accounts to pay filing fees in civil cases was rationally related to State's objective); Paro v. Longwood Hosp., 373 Mass. 645, 651 (1977) (requirement that medical malpractice plaintiffs pay bond in order to have case proceed if screening panel decides claim does not present legitimate question of liability rationally related to aim of assuring continued availability of medical malpractice insurance by deterring frivolous malpractice claims); Old Colony R.R. v. Assessors of Boston, 309 Mass. 439, 447 (1941) (requirement that real estate tax be paid before taxpayer could obtain hearing on abatement did not violate equal protection clause although only applicable to those owing tax in excess of $1,000 on single parcel). See also Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 69-79 (1972) (statute creating expedited process to try landlord's claim of possession against tenant, limited to question of tenant default, did not violate equal protection clause). We conclude here that the classification drawn by the Legislature is rationally related to a legitimate State interest, and that Sullivan's equal protection challenge is without merit.

2. Ex post facto law. Sullivan further argues that his rights under the Federal and State ex post facto clauses [FN11] were violated because he was required to pay the twenty-five dollar filing fee for a noncriminal hearing imposed by St.2009, c. 27, § 73, even though he was issued the citation and requested a hearing before the statute became effective. An ex post facto law is a law that makes punishable an act that was not punishable when it was committed, aggravates the nature of the offense or provides a greater punishment than was applicable when the act was committed, or alters the evidentiary rules in effect when the act was committed in order to convict or find a defendant responsible. See Commonwealth v. Bargeron, 402 Mass. 589, 590-591 (1988), citing Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 390 (1798). See also Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 28 (1981). The prohibition against ex post facto laws is only applicable to statutes that are criminal or punitive in nature. See Dutil, petitioner, 437 Mass. 9, 19 (2002); Doris v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 374 Mass. 443, 450 (1978).

The law challenged in this case, St.2009, c. 27, § 73, merely assesses a filing fee for judicial review of an alleged motor vehicle infraction, and is not criminal or punitive. The question whether a statute is punitive for purposes of ex post facto analysis is one of legislative intent to be discerned from statutory construction, see Commonwealth v. Bruno, 432 Mass. 489, 500 (2000), and it is plain that, in enacting these filing fees, the Legislature intended to reduce the strain on the court system and offset adjudicatory costs, rather than increase the punishment for motor vehicle infractions. The Legislature amended G.L. c. 90C, § 3, in the fiscal year 2010 budget, see St.2009, c. 27, and the fees charged were not applied to every alleged violator cited for an infraction, but only to those who wished to challenge the citation and who were not indigent, without regard to the severity of the underlying infraction or the penalty assessed. See Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 10800 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 459 Mass. 603, 619-620 (2011) (probation fee not intended as penalty). Cf. Commonwealth v. Cory, 454 Mass. 559, 566 (2009). Nor is " 'the statutory scheme ... so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate [the State's] intention' to deem it 'civil.' " Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 361 (1997), quoting United States v. Ward, 448 U.S. 242, 248-249 (1980). These circumstances make clear that the filing fees imposed under St.2009, c. 27, § 73, are not punitive and cannot successfully be challenged under the prohibition against ex post facto laws.

Conclusion. For the reasons described above, we conclude that St.2009, c. 27, §§ 73-74, do not violate equal protection guarantees and that the application of § 73 did not violate the ex post facto clause. We affirm the denial of Sullivan's motion seeking a refund of the filing fees.

So ordered.

FN1. We acknowledge the amicus brief submitted by Stanislav Gayshan, Ariele Lessing, and Christopher J. Pavlow.

FN2. As we discuss infra, Ralph C. Sullivan has not pursued on appeal his argument that the filing fees violate due process, so we do not consider the
merits of that argument.

FN3. With certain exceptions not relevant here, a civil motor vehicle infraction is defined as "an automobile law violation for which the maximum penalty does not provide for imprisonment." G.L. c. 90C, § 1.

FN4. At such a hearing, the citation is admissible and is prima facie evidence of the facts stated in the citation. G.L. c. 90C, § 3(A)(4). All parties are entitled to compulsory process for witnesses in the same manner as in criminal cases. Id. On a showing of need in advance of the hearing, the clerk-magistrate may direct that the alleged violator be allowed to inspect written documents essential to the defense that are in the possession of the police agency that issued the citation. Id.

FN5. After the enactment of St.2010, c. 131, § 57, effective July 1, 2010, the twenty-five dollar filing fee for the magistrate hearing must be paid together with the request for a hearing, within twenty days of the citation. G.L. c. 90C, § 3(A)(4).

FN6. At oral argument Sullivan sought to revive the due process argument by referring to the due process argument in the amicus brief, but we ordinarily do
not consider an argument made by an amicus that is not made by a party unless it is "sufficiently related" to an argument made by a party. See Bongaards v. Millen, 440 Mass. 10, 19 n. 6 (2003) ("this court ordinarily restricts its discussion to the arguments made by the parties and does not address arguments of amici curiae" unless that argument is "sufficiently related" to that made by party); Matter of the Receivership of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc., 434 Mass. 51, 57 (2001) (argument usually "limited to only those issues addressed by the parties"). See also Mass. R.A.P. 16(a)(2), 365 Mass. 860 (1974); Mass. R.A.P. 16(a)(4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975) (appellant's brief must state issues presented for review; court need not pass on issues not raised in brief).

FN7. Sullivan also raises two nonconstitutional arguments on appeal that were not raised below, and that we deem waived. First, he argues that the Salem District Court was not authorized to require payment of fees in cash, where the statute did not so require. Second, Sullivan argues that the requirement in St.2009, c. 27, § 74, of a fifty dollar fee to appeal the clerk-magistrate's finding is in conflict with Rule VII(b)(3) of the Trial Court Rules, the Uniform Rule on Civil Motor Vehicle Infractions (Lexis Nexis 2010- 2011), which states that "[t]here shall be no filing fee" for an appeal to a judge from the finding and disposition of a clerk-magistrate. We recognize
that, where a court rule is in irreconcilable conflict with a statute, "the statute supersedes the rule." Hermanson v. Szafarowicz, 457 Mass. 39, 45 (2010).

FN8. In fiscal year 2009, there were 204,231 filings in the District Court for civil motor vehicle infraction clerk-magistrate hearings, but only 11,670 filings for clerk-magistrate hearings for all other (nonmotor vehicle) civil infractions. Massachusetts District Court--Filings by Court--FY 2009. In fiscal year 2010, there were 183,931 filings for civil motor vehicle infraction hearings before a clerk-magistrate, and 14,542 filings for clerk-magistrate hearings on all other civil infractions. Massachusetts District Court, FY10 Scheduled Magistrate Hearings. We further note that civil motor vehicle infractions constituted seventy per cent of filings for clerk-magistrate hearings in fiscal year 2009 and sixty-eight per cent of such filings in fiscal year 2010.

FN9. In 2009, 698,420 citations were issued for motor vehicle violations, both civil and criminal. Motor Vehicle Insurance--Merit Rating Board, Motor Vehicle Violations by Date Written, Overall Summary (2009).

FN10. Where a person charged with both a criminal and a civil motor vehicle
violation makes a written request for a noncriminal hearing on the civil infraction, the hearing shall be conducted by a District Court judge, and may be conducted simultaneously with the criminal trial, or severed from the criminal trial and heard separately "if justice so requires." G.L. c. 90C, § 3(C)(2).

---

Masonic lodges of Satan are found in every town and city in USA, and most judges are required to be Masons

Initiation rituals of Freemasonry:
"I will obey all signs and summons handed to me by a chapter of Masons. I will assist a Mason when I see him engaged in any difficulty whether he be right or wrong. I promise and swear to forever conceal and never reveal any of the secrets of Masons or Masonry under no less penalty than to have my throat cut across from ear to ear, my tongue plucked out by the roots; my heart taken from under my left breast; my body cut across, my bowels taken out; my body dissected into four equal parts to hang and remain a terror to all those who shall presume to violate the sacred obligation of a Mason."
-President John Quincy Adams, founder of Anti-Masonic Party, Letters on Freemasonry

"You must conceal all crimes of your brother Masons, and should you be summoned as a witness against a brother Mason be always sure to shield him. It may be perjury to do this, it is true, but you're keeping your obligations."
-Ronayne Handbook of Masonry, page 183

"Freemasons have long been accused of Satanic practices as seen in the illustration of the Baphomet from Leo Taxil's The Mysteries of Freemasonry, 1897. Source: Archives of the Supreme Council, S.J., 33°"
-Scottish Rite Journal, "I Was Called a Satanist Today," Feb 2002
http://www.srmason-sj.org/web/journal-files/Issues/Feb02/moss.htm

"LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish Souls? Doubt it not!"
-Kosher General Albert Pike, pope of Freemasonry from his official Masonic bible Morals and Dogma of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, page 321


"The true name of Satan is, the Kallaists say, is that of Yahweh reversed; for Satan is not a black god, but the negation of God. The Devil is the personification of Atheism and Idoltry. For the Initiates, this is not a Person, but a Force, created for good; but which may serve for evil. It is the instrument for Liberty or Free Will. They represent this Force, which presides over the physical generation, under the mythological and horned form of the God Pan; hence came the he-goat of the Sabbat, brother of the Ancient Serpant, and the Light-Bearer, or Phosphor of which the poets have made the false Lucifer of the legend."
-General Albert Pike (Masonic pope), "Morals and Dogma of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry", page 102
http://www.srmason-sj.org

"The Apocalypse is, to those who receive the 19th Degree, the Apotheosis of that Sublime Faith which aspires to God alone, and despises all the pomps and works of Lucifer. LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish Souls? Doubt it not!"
-General Albert Pike, "Morals and Dogma of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry", Masonic bible "Morals and Dogma", page 321
http://www.srmason-sj.org

"There is in nature a one most potent force, by means whereof a single man, who could posses himself of it, and should know how to direct it, could revolutionize and change the face of the world. It is a universal agent, whose supreme law is equilibrium; and whereby, if science can but learn how to control it, it can be possible to change the order of the seasons, to produce in night the phenomenon of day, to send a thought in an instant around the world, to heal or slay at a distance, to give our words universal success, and made them reverberate everywhere. The Gnostics held that it was adorned in the secret rites of the Sabbat or the Temple, under the hieroglyphic figure of the Baphomet or the hermaphroditic goat of Mendes."
-General Albert Pike, "Morals and Dogma of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry", page 734

"All religions issued from the Kabalah and return to it: everything scientific and grand in the dreams of the illuminati is borrow from the Kabalah; all the Masonic associations owe to it their Secrets and Symbols. The Kabalah alone consecrates the allegiance of the Universal Reason and Devine Word. The Bible, with all the allegories it contains, expresses, in an incomplete and veiled manner only, the religious science of the Hebrews. Thus was a second Bible born, unknown to, or rather uncomprehended by, the Christians; a collection, they say, of monstrous absurdities; a monument, the adept says, wherein everything that the genius of philosophy and that of religion have ever formed or imagined of the sublime; a treasure surrounded by thorns; a diamond concelaed in a rough dark stone. One is filled with admiration, on penetrating into the Sancuary of the Kabalah, at seeing doctrine so logical, so simple, and at the same time so absolute. The Absolute Deity, with the Kabalists, has no name. The terms applied to Him are the Most Simple Light. For then there was no space or vacant place, but all was infinite Light."
-General Albert Pike, Jewish pope of Masonic Mafia, "Morals and Dogma of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry", page 744-5
http://www.srmason-sj.org

"The Oath of Fealty I bind my blood in Satan's hands, All this that lieth betwixt my hands To thee, the Beast, and thy control, I pledge me; body, mind, and soul. Pledge I swear to work my Work abhorred, Careless of all but one reward, The pleasure of the Devil our Lord."
—Aleister "The Beast 666" Crowley 33° Grand Inspector General Scottish Rite of Freemasonry and Frater Superior Baphomet XI°, SATANIC EXTRACTS

"But the bloody sacrifice, though more dangerous, is more efficacious; and for nearly all purposes human sacrifice is the best. For the highest spiritual working one must accordingly choose that victim which contains the greatest and purest force. A male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence is the most satisfactory and suitable victim."
—Aleister Crowley, MAGICK in Theory and Practice

GEORGE W BUSH IS GRANDSON OF SATANIST ALEISTER CROWLEY


President George Washington was assassinated by Satanic Freemasons