Two of the world's fastest cars - belonging to the new Qatari owners of Harrods - were clamped right outside the Knightsbridge store.
The £1.2 million Koenigsegg CCXR and £350,000 Lamborghini Murcielago LP670-4 SuperVeloce were parked outside the London department store last week.
Crowds of tourists watched in disbelief as a traffic warden first ticketed then clamped both vehicles – which are custom-made in the royal family's distinctive "baby blue" colour.
The cars belong to the oil-rich Al-Thani royal family, who own a string of luxury vehicles – including a one-off Pagani Zonda Uno.
Qatar Holding group, which forked out £1.5 billion in April to buy Harrods from Fulham FC owner Mohamed Al Fayed, is led by the Prime Minister of Qatar Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al-Thani.
The 249mph Koenigsegg is one of only six ever made. The custom-built supercar is built from scratch and does a 0-60 in 2.9 seconds, producing a staggering 1,064bhp.
The Lamborghini is one of only 350 ever built, again in the families trademark colour, and has a top speed of 213mph and is capable of 0-60 in just 3.2 seconds. But both were brought to a standstill when they were clamped – although the owners shouldn't have too much trouble stumping up the £150 release fee.
The owners could have taken advantage of Harrods' valet parking service which charges a £8 for the first hour or £40 for 8-9 hours with an additional £50 charge to store a car overnight.
An onlooker said: ''It's not every day you see cars like this, let alone watch them get clamped.
''Judging by their cars, I shouldn't think the owners will worry too much about paying a couple of hundred quid to have the clamps taken off.''
The Al Thani family have an estimated wealth in the region of £2.4 billion as well as stakes in dozens of businesses around the world.
A spokesperson for Harrods said: ''You will need to speak to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea who deal with parking regulations.''
Angle Grinder Man to the rescue!
By law anyone may cut off a wheel clamp, since the clamp was abandoned by its owner, without a due process hearing.
Too bad he can't do nuttin bout Prince Philip's assassination of Princess Diana, which is why Al Fayed sold Harrods an got da Hell out of the Nazi New World Odor HQ. Can't a have a black billionaire slummin wit da trillionaires.
We're all Barbie Cummings now. Checkpoints and traffic stops now routinely include full strip searches and body cavity searches while standing on the side of the road in full view of the public...so common fully nude actors are routinely shown on primetime TV cop shows. Never mind your Constitutional right to travel. Just be happy They're not burning down your house and killing your little dog too.
"Police officers are more likely to murder you or rape you or sexually assualt you than citizens." -Barry Cooper, DEA agent, DontGetBusted.com, MP3 radio broadcast
"The US Supreme Court said in Miranda that there's 40,000 police jurisdictions in America. We expect one civil rights crime in every one of those agencies every day. 40,000 times 365 days a year is 14,600,000 crimes committed by police every year. Hell, there's only 14,200,000 crimes committed by the criminals. The police commit more crimes against the People than the criminals commit!" -George Gordon Radio Show, The Policeman Is Not Your Friend, He Is Your Adversary
"10% of cops are honest, 10% are dishonest, and 80% wish they were honest." -Detective Frank Serpico NYPD, Knapp Commission
"I’ll burn your house down, set your dog on fire and there won’t be a member of your family left, do you understand me? I won’t hire it done, I will do it myself! Do you understand me?” -Deals Gap Blount County sheriff James Berrong, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Nuchols v. Berrong, No. 04-5645, July 11, 2005
Tortured by Cops in TN - Waterboarding, Baseball Bat, Gun in the Mouth Inside Your Own Home, to Extort Signature on "Consent to Search" Contract
COP. 2. to steal; filch. 3. to buy (narcotics). 4. cop out, a. to avoid one's responsibility, the fulfillment of a promise, etc.; renege; back out. 5. cop a plea, a. to plead guilty or confess in return for receiving a lighter sentence. b. to plead guilty to a lesser charge; plea-bargain. -Random House Unabridged Dictionary
Newly-released documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) reveal that the US Depart of Homeland Security has been working on plans to roll out a new wave of mobile surveillance technologies at train stations, stadiums and streets. These new technologies will track your eye movements, capture and record your facial dimensions for face-recognition processing, bathe you in X-rays to look under your clothes, and even image your naked body using whole-body infrared images that were banned from consumer video cameras because they allowed the camera owners to take "nude" videos of people at the beach.
Most importantly, many of these technologies are designed to be completely hidden, allowing the government to implement "covert inspection of moving subjects." You could be walking down a hallway at a sports stadium, in other words, never knowing that you're being bathed in X-rays from the Department of Homeland Security, whose operators are covertly looking under your clothes to see if you're carrying any weapons.
Roving vans to "track eye movements"
According to a Forbes.com article (http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenbe...), one project pursued by DHS using technology from Siemens would "mount backscatter x-ray scanners and video cameras on roving vans, along with other cameras on buildings and utility poles, to monitor groups of pedestrians, assess what they carried, and even track their eye movements."
Another project involved developing "a system of long range x-ray scanning to determine what metal objects an individual might have on his or her body at distances up to thirty feet."
We already know that the U.S. government has purchased 500 vans using covert backscatter technology to covertly scan people on the streets. They're called "Z Backscatter Vans, or ZBVs." http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/08/24/full-body-scan-technology-deployed-in-street-roving-vans/
This is all part of the U.S. government's new wave of police state surveillance that aims to track and irradiate innocent civilians who have committed no crime. Under the new Janet Napolitano regime, all Americans are now considered potential terrorists, and anyone can be subjected to government-sanctioned radiation scanning at any time, without their knowledge or approval.
And don't think these efforts will be limited merely to backscatter technology: The TSA is now testing full-power, deep-penetrating X-ray machines (like the ones that deliver chest X-rays in hospitals) in order to check people for bombs they may have swallowed. Yes, Janet Napolitano now wants to look inside your colon! And they're willing to X-ray everyone -- without their consent -- in order to do that.
Read the documents yourself
If you have trouble believing the U.S. government is unleashing a new wave of police state covert scanning vans on to the streets of America, you can read the documents yourself -- all 173 pages. They're available on the EPIC website at: http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/EPIC_Body_Scan_FOIA_Docs_Feb_2011.pdf
EPIC calls these vans "mobile strip search devices" because they give the federal government technology to look under your clothes without your permission or consent. It's also being done without probable cause, so it's a violation of the Fourth Amendment protections that are guaranteed to Americans under the Bill of Rights.
"It's a clear violation of the fourth amendment that's very invasive, not necessarily effective, and poses all the same radiation risks as the airport scans," said EPIC attorney Ginger McCall, in the Forbes article (above).
Huge health risks to the population
It's not just the privacy issues that raise red flags here, of course: It's also the fact that the U.S. government has no respect whatsoever for the health of its citizens who are being subjected to these radiation emitting devices. Even while the TSA refuses to release testing results from its own naked body scanners, DHS keeps buying more machines (and more powerful machines) that will only subject travelers to yet more radiation.
As we've already reported here on NaturalNews.com, numerous scientists are already on the record warning that the TSA's backscatter "naked body scanners" could cause breast cancer, sperm mutation and other health problems. http://www.naturalnews.com/030607_naked_body_scanners_radiation.html
But the U.S. government doesn't seem to care what happens to your health. Their position is that their "right" to know what you're carrying under your clothes or inside your body overrides your right to privacy or personal health. All they have to do is float a couple of fabricated terrorism scare stories every few months, and then use those "threats" as justification for violating the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens are very turn.
The real question in all this, of course, is how far will this go? The TSA is already reaching down your pants and feeling up peoples' genitals as part of the "security" measures. Will DHS soon just start subjecting people to body cavity searches as a necessary security requirement before entering a football stadium, for example? Will Americans now be X-rayed with cancer-causing ionizing radiation -- without their awareness or consent -- merely because they are walking down the street or boarding a train?
That seems to be the case. And as you can readily tell from all this, it's getting harder and harder for the fast-dwindling group of deniers to claim America isn't already a police state. The USA is fast becoming a high-tech version of the very worst police state tyrannies witnessed throughout human history. The only difference is that now they have "science" on their side with the coolest new technology that can violate your rights and irradiate your body in a hundred different ways, with high-resolution images and digital storage devices.
I suppose if all this were being done to really stop international terrorists, that might be one thing. But what has become increasingly clear in observing the government's behavior in this realm is that the U.S. government now considers Americans to be the enemy -- especially those who have the gall to defend their Constitutionally-protected freedoms or question the unjustified centralization of power taking place right now in Washington.
The DHS is America's new secret police. And their cameras are pointing inward, into the everyday lives of Americans; not outward, aimed at international terrorists.
When the price of security becomes forfeiting your liberty, the source of the "terror" is no longer the terrorists but your own government. Isn't this the lesson that history has taught us well?
Watch the talk by Naomi Wolf, who explains all this extremely well: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=EEE6C7A46FA0A552EAB819EB4693210A http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=176F565D8E528E3AEDC7A28A18CBAD63
This video will open your eyes to what's really happening today. It has all happened before in recent history, and the patterns are undeniable. Watch the videos to learn more.
The most recent effort by the government to target motorcyclists and circumvent the American idea of freedom comes from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Across the nation, motorcycle riders’ advocacy groups are preparing for road blocks federally funded by NHTSA represented to be "Motorcycle only" checkpoints.
The stated reason for these checkpoints will be to check safety equipment on motorcycles. It is believed that the intended method is to post signs on interstates directing motorcyclists to leave the interstate to off-ramps set up with roadblocks. The latest state to indicate its intention to utilize this is the State of Georgia. It is not a stretch to presume it will be utilized to coincide with major biker events. The result may be increased harassment, more citations and even more disturbing, can result in the searching of bikes, detainment from destinations, and subjecting private belongings to being rifled through by police officers. We should expect more criminal charges brought against riders from these searches.
As an attorney practicing criminal and constitutional law for almost 20 years it is clear to me that we will constantly be required to challenge the power of government to prevent the eroding of our right to ride free and without harassment. While many times the most successful way to combat this governmental intrusion is through the assertion of our rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under both the Federal and Tennessee State Constitutions, we should also be concerned about abridgment of our First Amendment Right to Freedom of Assembly. It is reasonable to believe the new motorcycle only roadblocks are intended to harass and deter motorcycle club activities by timing them with national club meetings and rallies.
Further concern arises as we face the constant targeting of those riding with colors. No one with experience on the road can doubt that someone declaring allegiance to an organization ranging from Motorcycle Ministries to the most widely known MC’s will be targeted and harassed to an additional degree with even more intrusion than other motorcyclists.
While we have observed a constant eroding of our constitutional rights, the Federal Government is likely to run into some problems enforcing this targeted intrusion into our biker rights, especially in the State of Tennessee. In the State of Tennessee, there are specific constitutional requirements which must be met in order to justify a stop that is not conducted based on reasonable suspicion, informally known as suspicionless stops. The road blocks that NHTSA is seeking to implement fall under this category of a stop, because they are applied indiscriminately to bikers, not based on any articulated suspicion that the person is guilty of a certain crime. These rights are elaborated on in case law precedent, which establishes that there must be a deterrent factor and an immediate great danger in order to conduct the suspicionless stops.
The Tennessee Supreme Court has thus far strictly limited roadblocks to DUI only checkpoints based upon the imminent danger of impaired drivers while they are on the road. Prior notice of roadblocks is required in the hopes of deterring impaired driving. Attempts by law enforcement to use road blocks to check driver’s licenses thus far have been struck down by the courts as a violation of the constitutional rights of Tennesseans. The rationale for this striking down of driver’s license only checkpoints should equally apply to motorcycle only checkpoints for safety equipment.
It is unlikely that sufficient danger from a motorcyclist’s tail pipes is anywhere near that of detecting the imminent danger of impaired drivers and thus would likely be found unconstitutional. Also, it is arguable that these checkpoints will not achieve the intended purpose of "motorcyclist's safety," as funding safety programs that prevent crashes would be better than motorcycle-only checkpoints and present a lesser degree of intrusion into our constitutional rights.Fortunately, if bikers, bikers’ advocacy organizations, and dedicated constitutional law attorneys take stand and challenge the illegal detentions and stops of motorcyclists through federally funded road blocks, the law for once may actually be on our side. For those who enjoy reading about the constitution and your rights, the Tennessee Supreme Court Cases of State of Tennessee v. Downey and State of Tennessee v. Hicks will increase your knowledge as to why these roadblocks can successfully be defeated in Tennessee. You can access these cases through the hyperlinks provided below.
It is important for all riders to know that when on the road, attempts to challenge police authority will seldom result in any positive results. I admire those who desire to assert their constitutional freedom but it is important to realize that it may come at a cost when on the side of the road. The place for a meaningful win and to put a more significant stop to these abuses and waste of tax dollars will come in a different setting than on the side of the road, as it will take place in the court room, through the assertion of rights guaranteed by our Constitution.
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. BOBBY CRUTCHER - This is an appeal by the State of Tennessee from the judgment of the intermediate appellate court affirming the suppression of evidence in the trial court below.[1] The sole issue is whether the warrantless police search of the appellee’s motorcycle violated his rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution. The State contends that the suppression of evidence was improper because the search in question was incident to a lawful arrest. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the appellee, Bobby Crutcher, was not under arrest at the time of the police search. Accordingly, we affirm both the trial court and the Court of Criminal Appeal’s determination that the search was not incident to a lawful arrest. The evidence obtained from the search was properly suppressed. On October 19, 1995, Officer Frank Moniz of the Gallatin Police Department observed three motorcyclists drive away from a traffic light at an excessive rate of speed. The officer activated his emergency flashing equipment and pulled over two of the speeding motorcyclists. However, the third motorcycle, driven by the appellee, accelerated even more in an attempt to flee from the pursuing officer. Officer Moniz gave chase to the appellee and the two vehicles reached speeds of one hundred (100) miles per hour. April 12, 1999
From the I Land of Spotted Dick and Mr Brains Faggots...
TT3D Closer to the Edge - By vividly recounting the TT's legendary rivalries and the Isle of Man's unique road racing history, this 3D feature documentary will discover why modern TT riders still risk their lives to win the world's most dangerous race. The Isle of Man Tourist Trophy is the greatest motorcycle road race in the world, the ultimate challenge for rider and machine. It has always called for a commitment far beyond any other racing event, and many have made the ultimate sacrifice in their quest for victory. A story about freedom of choice, the strength of human spirit and the will to win. It's also an examination of what motivates those rare few, this elite band of brothers who risk everything to win. The vision of top commercials director Richard de Aragues, this promises to be one of the most thrilling films of 2011.
TT3D narrated by Jared Leto of 30 Seconds to Mars.
Tenn. justices rule flagpole ban protest not protected speech
KNOXVILLE, TENN. -- A nearly five-year-long court battle over the limits of free speech rights has pitted a flag-waving veteran against police at a Hamblen County anti-illegal immigration rally and divided justices in both an intermediate appellate court and the state Supreme Court.
And it all began with a low-level misdemeanor conviction that likely would have been erased from Teddy Ray Mitchell's record.
The state's high court this past week reinstated that disorderly conduct conviction, reversing the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals' decision last year to toss out the case. Neither decision was a unanimous one, however.
The key issue: Was Mitchell's loud and rowdy protest of a police order banning flagpoles at the rally constitutionally protected speech?
The backdrop: It was a hot June day in 2006. As many as 500 opponents of immigration policies in the United States were gathered on the lawn of the Hamblen County Courthouse. Morristown officers were outfitted in riot gear. Police snipers dotted rooftops.
Enter Mitchell, then 61 years old.
His first verbal clash with authorities came when Officer Andre Kyle, who is black, barred him from parking in an area police purposely were keeping clear.
"There's no (racial slur) going to tell me where I can and can't park," Mitchell responded.
Mitchell parked elsewhere and tried to enter the rally entrance with an American flag affixed to an eagle-topped metal pole. Flags were fine. Poles and sticks weren't, as police deemed them possible weapons. Mitchell took immediate umbrage, cursing and yelling. Police claimed he used the flagpole to poke at Officer Troy Wallen.
A melee ensued, with part-time Officer Frankie Lane whipping out a Taser. But it was Kyle, not Mitchell, who wound up Tased, according to the opinion.
Police charged Mitchell with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. A jury later acquitted Mitchell of the latter charge but deemed him guilty of being disorderly. Judge John F. Dugger Jr. had been willing to grant Mitchell judicial diversion, which would have allowed him to wipe his record clean after six months of good behavior.
Mitchell, instead, appealed.
State law defines disorderly conduct as conduct carried out in public, designed to cause "public annoyance or alarm," and "threatening" in nature. Police statewide often turn to it as a crowd control tool.
In a 2-1 ruling, the intermediate appellate court concluded the jury was wrong to deem Mitchell guilty of that charge.
Appellate Judges D. Kelly Thomas Jr. and James Curwood Witt Jr. opined that law enforcers should have thicker skins when it comes to being cursed and confronted and insisted a video did not show Mitchell menacing officers with the flagpole. Appellate Judge Norma McGee Ogle disagreed, saying the video made clear Mitchell's threatening behavior.
State prosecutors, then, sought a review by the state Supreme Court. It is extraordinary that the high court agreed to take up the case at all. The only cases the high court must review are those of convicted killers facing death.
But Mitchell's case, even though a misdemeanor, offered the rare chance to examine the line between legal dissent and illegal disorder, so they opted to allow the state's appeal.
In a 4-1 decision penned by Justice Gary R. Wade and released this past week, the high court concluded that Mitchell's overall behavior amounted to "fighting words" that crossed the line from protected free speech to disorderly conduct.
"While words and also conduct expressive of an idea may qualify as protected speech, the threatening behavior demonstrated by (Mitchell) does not, in our view, fall within either category," Wade wrote. "(Mitchell's) use of (a racial slur), his refusal to obey the officer's directive to move his vehicle from a no-parking area until a white officer intervened, his angry response, and his loud and belligerent confrontation of the officers at the rally area checkpoint qualified as threatening behavior designed to annoy or alarm in a public place."
Wade was joined in the opinion by Chief Justice Cornelia A. Clark and Justices Janice M. Holder and William C. Koch Jr.
Justice Sharon G. Lee split from the majority and instead backed Mitchell's free speech claim.
"In vociferously challenging the officers' authority to deny him permission to enter the rally with his American flag, there is no doubt Mr. Mitchell was rude, loud and belligerent," Lee wrote in a dissenting opinion. "... There was no proof that Mr. Mitchell made any threats of violence. There was no proof that any of the seven police officers at the entrance felt threatened at any time by Mr. Mitchell."
Mitchell could now try to entice the U.S. Supreme Court to wade into the debate. Otherwise, he'll walk away with the misdemeanor conviction back on his record.
clover. 1. clover is a plant often found in clover fields. however, whilst clover is a plant that grows where no one wants it, clover is also a nick name for a person who goes where no one wants them to (e.g. parking their caravan on private land and then stealing your windchimes). "Oh no, some gypsy started camping on the field behind our house." "ah shit, we've got clover!" 2. a rattled kid who needs to be called a clover. 3. Listens to soft music like owl city, tswift, and lots of remixes. -UrbanDictionary.com
Could you be a Clover? Maybe you don’t even know what a Clover is?
Here’s how to know:
Do you use your rearview mirror?
Clovers tend to be oblivious to their surroundings — and in particular, of their fellow motorists. They don’t notice that their rear bumper has grown a tail six other cars long. The true dyed-in-the-wool Clover does notice — but doesn’t care. Either he’s “doing the speed limit”– or the other drivers are “speeders.”
Those other cars stacking up behind him can wait. What’s their rush, anyhow?
Back into parking spaces?
A behavior peculiar to Clovers is the reflexive need to back into parking spaces — after multiple attempts and always at an angle that makes the adjacent spot useless or (if another car is already parked there) forces its owner to enter his vehicle Dukes of Hazzard style, through the window — because there’s not enough space to open the door anymore.
Need two lanes to pass a bicycle?
Clovers have much worse than average depth perception and sense of spatial relationships, so when they roll up behind a bicycle, they will slow to the bike’s 10 mph crawl and hold until they have at least another car width’s worth of room to attempt to pass by. This may not become possible for many excruciating miles.
Apply the brakes at random?
Just like the blipping bioluminescence of a firefly, the Clover will signal his presence in the area by tapping his brakes for no reason, at random — even on open stretches of road.
Related: See-saw slowing and speeding up. The Clover never quite masters the High Skill of maintaining a given speed without the assistance of cruise control.
Slow for School Zones even when school’s obviously out?
The Clover is born with a hinge at the base of his spine, near the pelvis — to facilitate reflexive genuflecting before any and all laws — even when the law at issue isn’t even operative. Thus, to a Clover, one must always slow to a Moped-like crawl when within a 5 mile radius of any school, open or not.
Wait for the green light even when right on red is legal?
Clovers by definition lack initiative. Thus, they will park at traffic lights and wait — even if right on red is allowed and even if it’s infuriatingly clear to other drivers trying to get where they’re going that there’s no oncoming traffic. The Clover will wait…. and wait. And then wait some more. And thus, so will you.
When the light finally does go green, the Clover will invariably not notice for several seconds, long enough to make sure that at least two or three cars behind him that might otherwise have made the light won’t.
Do you frequently stop-merge?
This is a Cloverish specialty de la maison. When entering a busy highway, stop on the on-ramp; then creep directly in front of traffic running 70 mph at no more than 15 or 20 MPH. It’s up to the other cars to make room for you. If another driver almost wrecks or spills his coffee all over his lap trying to avoid you, well — he shouldn’t have been “speeding.” So there.
Refuse to move right?
Perhaps the signature characteristic of Clovers the world over is their adamant refusal to yield to faster-moving traffic. Ever. This act is what distinguishes the Clover from the merely slow/cautious driver. It is understandable that some drivers — the elderly, for instance — are not comfortable driving faster than the speed limit, or even at the speed limit. We may all end up like this someday. But the problem here isn’t the slow driving. It’s the obnoxious, passive-aggressive determination to force everyone else to drive slowly, too.
The non-Clover will notice that others are trying to get by and will pull over, or move right to let them do so. We wave our hands in appreciative thanks. The Clover, however, will cling to his position like a leg-humping Lab. Flashing your lights will only egg him on; he’ll drive even more slowly. Some particularly vengeful Clovers will even use their Clovermobiles (typically, older Buicks or late-model SmooVees plastered with those little stick figure fambly icons) to physically try to prevent you from passing if you dare to try.
The true Clover, you see, is not merely a bad driver. He is a bad driver on a tear; angry at the world and in particular, anyone who who doesn’t view the world in through Clover-colored glasses. That would be anyone who doesn’t automatically worship The Law (any law; every law) or who isn’t consumed by a desire to make sure everyone else obeys The Law.
Tennessee Code §55-8-123. Driving on roadways laned for traffic
(4)(A) Where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five (5) or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn or pull off the roadway wherever sufficient area exists to do so safely, in order to permit vehicles following it to proceed.
(B) Any person failing to conform with the provisions of subdivision (4)(A) shall receive a warning citation on first offense and be liable for a fine of twenty dollars ($20.00) on second offense, and fifty dollars ($50.00) on third and subsequent offenses.
Hopefully, this isn’t you. And if it is you, why not just move over?
It’s not very hard — and you’ll feel better in the morning.
By SIMON NEVILLE London Daily Mail 28th March 2011
Singer-songwriter and marijuana enthusiast Willie Nelson could have faced a lengthy jail term after he was arrested for possession in November.
But perhaps the Texas prosecutor has been smoking some of Willie’s special cigarettes, because he has agreed to let the 77-year-old legend avoid prison but only if he gives the court a song.
Hudspeth County Attorney Kit Bramblett said: ‘I’m gonna let him plead, pay a small fine and he’s gotta sing “Blue Eyes Crying in the Rain” with his guitar right there in the courtroom.’
He added: ‘You bet you’re ass I ain’t gonna be mean to Willie Nelson.’
Nelson was arrested in November his tour bus was crossing the Mexican border into Hudspeth County, Texas on its way to Los Angeles when officers smelled cannabis coming from inside.
The bus was searched and six ounces was discovered, which Nelson said was his. He posted a $2,500 bail and the bus was allowed to go on its way.
Nelson is a keen advocate of legalising the drug and is co-chair of the advisory board of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
Local laws say that anything below three ounces is considered a misdemeanour, which Bramblett usually pushes for a fine and court costs, which are paid through the mail.
When Nelson’s papers came to County Judge Becky Walker’s desk, she told Bramblett to call the singer to her court, which he promptly did.
Although initially stopped with 6 ounces, with packaging removed the weight was less than three.
Bramblett, who prosecutes between 10 and 12 marijuana possession cases a month joked: ‘Between me and the sheriff, we threw out enough of it or smoked enough so that there’s only three ounces, which is within my jurisdiction.’
It is understood the singer will agree to the demand when his tour is next in town. It is not the first time the singer has been arrested for drug possession.
In January of this year, six of Nelson's band and crew members were stopped in North Carolina for allegedly possessing moonshine and cannabis in a vehicle they travelling in. They were issued with citations.
And back in 2006 Louisiana authorities searched Nelson's tour bus and found about a pound-and-a-half of marijuana and magic mushrooms.
'It’s a matter of time, a matter of education, a matter of people finding out what cannabis, marijuana is for, why it grows out of the ground and why it’s prescribed as one of the greatest stress medicines on the planet,' he said during an interview in 2008.
During national alcohol Prohibition, juries routinely drank the evidence then found bootleggers Not Guilty for lack of evidence.
due process of law n. a fundamental principle of fairness in all legal matters -The People's Law Dictionary
"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." -Fifth Amendment, U.S. Constitution
Motorists.org
The National Motorists Association is assisting in an appeal before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, challenging the state’s ability to charge non-refundable filing fees to defendants who simply want to contest a traffic ticket or parking ticket in court.
It all started when Belmont, Massachusetts attorney Ralph Sullivan found himself in the wrong lane in Salem two years ago. Sullivan fought his ticket in court and lost, but then appealed, and finally was found not responsible. Sullivan then requested a refund of his $25 initial hearing fee and $50 appeal fee, but was denied.
The case was combined with that of Vincent Gillespie, who sought to challenge a parking ticket, and had to pay $275 in non-refundable filing fees to fight his ticket all the way through appeal.
The NMA contacted Sullivan to offer assistance in the case. It was agreed that we should prepare what is called an Amicus Curiae brief, supporting and expanding on Sullivan’s own legal arguments against the filing fees. In particular, we wanted to make the case that the fees violate constitutional “due process.” The amicus brief was prepared, submitted to the SJC and accepted as a part of the combined case. (You can read the brief here.)
Attorney Sullivan appeared before the court on March 10th for “oral argument” with opposing Assistant Attorney General William W. Porter. (You can read a good account of the oral argument here, or listen to a podcast of the argument here. The oral argument of Gillespie’s attorney, William C. Newman, is here.)
Late in the proceedings, Chief Justice Roderick L. Ireland, who had previously remained silent, asked Porter, “From the perspective of the average Joe...what's the message here? You've got to pay to have your day in court…? Is that fair…?”
“I believe it is…” replied Porter.
Obviously, we beg to differ. How can $75 in non-refundable fees to fight a $100 traffic ticket or $275 in non-refundable fees to fight a $15 parking ticket possibly be fair?
The Court now will take time to consider all the oral arguments and review the filed briefs, and then deliver its ruling.
To quote our amicus brief, “The consequences of the Court’s decision on these appeals will materially affect the perceptions of citizens as to the purpose, fairness, legitimacy, and true justice inherent in the entire Massachusetts judicial system.”
We’ll see what message the court decides to send.
The NMA will pay your speeding ticket if you lose in court.
Kosher Judge Judy is paid $30-million per year to brainwash you to waive all Constitutions and Rules of Court
by Dr. Frederick D. Graves, JD Jurisdictionary.com
As has been said, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse," and though I disagree strongly with that maxim (since my profession has failed and refused to teach the public anything whatever about our laws, how they work, or how they can be enforced through our court system) one is wise to make an effort to know what the law affecting our lives is ... especially when we're fighting for our rights in court!
Q. Can you win without controlling the judge?
A. You cannot!
Doubt me at your peril!
I fought and won in court for a quarter-century by applying this simple secret: knowing how to control judges!
There's no other way!
How's it done, you ask?
What's the big secret?
Actually, it's no secret at all. It's very simple, really!
So simple, in fact, it's uncanny! All the laws and rules and testimony and evidence accounts for nothing if you don't know how to control the judge!
I received my degree from an excellent law school back in 1985. But, we weren't taught this secret to winning!
Surprise you? It should. It surprises me, too!
I faithfully attended 3 years of classes and read every page of a stack of lawbooks 20-feet high, but never were we told the simple secret of: How to Win in Court.
You must control the judge!
This is your #1 task ... if you want to win!
And, there's only ONE WAY to control the judge.
Threaten appeal!
Use empty threats, quote internet legal mythology, demand to see his oath of office, challenge jurisdiction based on the color of the fringe on the courtroom flag?
Absolutely not!
The process is simple, and YOU can do it!
If you have a lawyer, he may be unwilling to do it. He may be afraid to do it. But, if you want to win, someone must threaten the judge with appeal!
It's just plain dumb to march into court demanding one's "Constitutional Rights", expecting the judge to admit your evidence, to deny the evidence and tricks presented by the other side, and award judgment in your favor. It just doesn't work that way!
The key to winning at the trial level is making a winning record for appeal (in case the judge rules against you) at all times making it clear that the record you've made will win on appeal if the judge chooses to rule against you!
Judges don't like to be overturned on appeal.
Yes! It all comes down to this! Believe it or not!
Too simple? I thought so, too, at first. It took a couple of years before I finally saw the light. Law school led me to believe judges were a higher life-form that only did right and followed law. Some judges I dealt with these past 25 years were good. A few were arrogant, hard-headed egos who didn't like to be "talked back" to and acted as if the courtroom belonged to them, instead of to the People and the courageous young men and women who gave their all so we could demand justice from such tyrants and get it!
The following is a partial list of things YOU must insist upon (whether you have a lawyer or not) if you want to control the judge, make your winning appellate record, and influence the judge to rule in your favor. These are listed in no particular order. They are ALL covered in my official24-hour step-by-step Jurisdictionary lawsuit self-help course in which you will learn how to:
Draft proper pleadings with all fact elements Obtain all necessary evidence before trial Make effective oral motions Draft effective written motions Draft compelling memoranda Insure a written record of all proceedings is made Object promptly to all errors of opponent Object promptly to all errors of judge Renew objections to all un-cured errors of judge Keep your opponent's evidence out Get your evidence in Stop opponent from proposing false orders Offer to draft all orders Prevent opponent's lawyer from testifying ... and much, much more! Of course my Jurisdictionary self-help course shows a lot more skills than what's listed here as examples. If you don't know how to do these easy tasks, you let the judge off the hook! Once a judge sees you haven't prepared an effective record for appeal, he knows he can rule any way he wishes and escape the threat of successful appeal.
Do the math!
I realize these newsletters urge you to get my course. If you already have my official self-help course, I hope these newsletters remind you of the importance of studying the course thoroughly. Things you don't yet know are the very things your opponent will use to destroy your case!
Lawsuits are an axe fight. Bring your axe.
More in-depth details of legal research, what to search for, how to cite to cases, how to use cited cases to control judges, and much more is included in my official 24-hour, step-by-step lawsuit self-help course you will learn more about at Jurisdictionary.
Sturgeon v. The County of Los Angeles - In 1998, the state of California took over funding of all state trial court operations, including responsibility for payment of salaries and benefits to trial court judges. Los Angeles County, which is home to one of the largest trial court systems in the United States, continues to pay "local judicial benefits" to its judges to supplement the compensation and benefits they received from the state. This "double dipping" by trial court judges costs Los Angeles County taxpayers an estimated $20 million per year. In the spring of 2006, Judicial Watch filed a "citizen-taxpayer" lawsuit against the county seeking to have these payments declared unlawful and to enjoin future payments. Following the trial court's ruling upholding the payments, Judicial Watch appealed, and on October 10, 2008, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division One, reversed the ruling of the trial court and remanded the case. In July 2009, the trial court again upheld the payments, but Judicial Watch provided a Notice of Appeal on September 28, 2009. However, in December 2010, the lower court's judgment was affirmed, so Judicial Watch filed a petition for review on February 4, 2011.
FullDisclosure.net - How to file a Motion to Vacate Void Judgment for corruption of judge
An incoherent Judge Judy told shocked audience members she "needed to stop" one of her made-for-TV cases because she was "not feeling well," RadarOnline.com is exclusively reporting.
Judge Sheindlin was rushed to a Los Angeles hospital Wednesday morning after she suddenly started saying things that didn't make sense, a studio insider revealed.
"She was just sitting on the stand during her show taping and she started saying things that didn't make any sense," a source close to the situation told RadarOnline.com, exclusively.
"She said, 'I need to stop, I'm not feeling well.'"
The source told RadarOnline.com that the 68-year-old judge was only two cases deep into her taping when her bizarre behavior prompted her to stop and have a crew member call 911.
"She said couple of sentences that didn't have anything to do with the case and then she stopped speaking and said she wasn't feeling well," the source said.
"The stage manager called the paramedics and they came and took her away."
The Los Angeles City Fire Department confirmed to RadarOnline.com that a paramedic ambulance was dispatched to the KTLA Studios in Hollywood, where Judge Judy tapes her show, at 9:12 a.m. today.
Sheindlin's rep, Gary Rosen, confirmed to RadarOnline.com that the judge is in the hospital and will be staying overnight for observation. "The judge was feeling nauseous and had some intestinal discomfort and decided to go to the hospital to get it checked out," Rosen said.
