What is everyone working on now that its cold and windy?

That problem is being solved by eliminating actual rights and kiling the very principal of probable cause.
Jerry

Tweak, Jim Yanik, and Ray, etc.
In almost any state, you have given up your right to probable cause by implied consent, when you sign for your drivers license. Implied consent gives law enforcement the authority to pull you over for almost any traffic related reason, that in their judgment, is warranted and you give them that right by having a drivers license. You do not have to walk the line, give up a breath test or submit to a blood test, as that is protected by the constitution and would be considered self incrimination. However, not submitting to one or both of the tests, will not protect you from being charged with a DWI/DUI, if there is sufficient behavior on your part to establish probable cause, in the law enforcement officers opinion: However, you just won't self incriminate yourself. On the other hand, the draw back to an individual taking that approach, in most states, results in immediate revocation of your drivers license, because in most all states, (I know of none that it's not), that is the law as applied to implied consent. Read your state DL hand book, your mileage may vary slightly.. It is you constitutional right to except or decline a drivers licence, under those conditions. (:-)
You all drive safely now, ya hear.. (:-)
Fred

Hey, it's RMR, you can debate anything you want..
Fred

You have the expectation of being guilty. You have the duty to incriminate yourself. You have no rights. If you can not afford a lawyer, you will rot in jail. If you are not guilty, a connfession will be coerced from you.
Welcome to the Police state of Amerika, komrade.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

He dosen't..
Who was fined $40 gran??
Fred

Stop me for no reason, and do any of the above, and I *WILL* file civil rights violations charges against any one involved. Ditto for any search without a warrant. I will not give up my rights.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Are you bragging that you got the feds to put someone in trouble?
I'd be embarrassed about something like that... I, admittedly, have a weird attitude about the feds: but what do you expect, when (aside from the space program) the most visible behaviors of our government during my formative years were things like Kent State, Vietnam, and Watergate...
-dave w

Well then Bob, just say know the next time. It's your constitutional right to do so, but buy a bicycle first..(:-)
Fred

No, now back under your bridge..
With what "big fine" was attempting to do at the time, no F@#$ING WAY.
That's a start..
but what do you expect, when (aside from We all have our crosses to carry..
Fred

I meant "no", but I guess you could say know..(:-)

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mb-m03.aol.com:
Nor is stopping everyone travelling in one manner of conveyance,or travelling down one road,just to look for a few who are acting criminally.
It would be no different than stopping people walking down any street,and checking them for illegal substances or weapons. That's clearly unconstitutional,yet there's a large number of people harmed by those moving about while carrying weapons or drugs.Stopping them still is no "reasonable" action,as judged by the USSC.
The 4th clearly defines "reasonable" as requiring probable cause or a warrant.Otherwise,*anything* could be construed as "reasonable" to those interested in justifying their searches/seizures,a wide-open path for government abuse. One can see this today with the recent spate of "eminent domain" property seizures where the gov't takes a private person's land,only to give it to another private person to raze and redevelop,solely to increase tax revenues for the gov't.Thatis exactly one reason WHY the 4th Amendment was included in the Constitution!! This is currently being judged by the USSC.It will be interesting to see how they rule.

"W. E. Fred Wallace" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@boe.com:
The government has no right/authority to force people to surrender their Constitutional rights to utilize any legal manner of travel. It is not authorized in the Constitution. The gov'ts powers are LIMITED,not the People's rights.

"Implied consent" still doesn't mean they can randomly pull people over and give them breathalyzer tests. They have to have a legitimate reason ("probable cause") such as erratic driving.
BTW, the Feds do the same thing here with their unconstitutional INS checkpoints on the freeway. Where does "implied consent" give them the right to do that? It doesn't, but they do it anyway.

I'm a victim of a drunk driver. And I STRONGLY disagree with the "checkpoint" style stops where every car is stopped. Or even every 5th car is stopped. Since there is no reason to stop ANY car (unless maybe they are all leaving a bar at closing time), this is an unwarranted search. It is a violation of my right to travel to perform such stops. Every driver so stopped in this country who is NOT DUI should immediately be handed a $100 bill. That would shut down these illegal police actions real fast.
The reason for doing these checkpoints is (1) it makes for good headlines (2) it makes the cops look like they are doing something and (3) they discover other things in the process. The first two are NOT valid reasons for checkpoints. And the last one should be tossed out of court every time it happens. And as I said, every person unnecessarilly stopped should be granted a summary judgement against the cops for violating their rights.
That is totally inneffective. Unless you put one up at every corner in the town, and declare a police state. "Paperz Pleeze"!
I see plenty of drivers that are driving in a manner that clearly leads me to believe they are drunk. Any cop with half a brain would pull them over immediately, with good cause. And should do so. But this requires effort. With checkpoints they can set up and collect all sorts of "criminals"
BTW, last time I saw a clearly DUI driver, I was passed moments later by a cop doing 25 mpdh over the speed limit, with lights and siren OFF. I was sure he was going to pull over the guy I'd been avoiding. But he sipped right past me, him, and every one else. Must have been late for his regular donut :-(
Yet that is a routine part of these checkpoints. Along with asking for your ID, running your license, asking for your registration and insurance, peering inside your car, asking "if you'd mind opening the trunk", checking to see if one of your tail lights might be burned out or something else might be wrong to cite you for, etc etc. It's government sponsored shakedowns.
Remember, I'm a victim of a repeat drunk driver. I'd like to see him and everyone like him (most are regularl drunk drivers and are never caught) off the roads for good. But stopping me, who has never been drunk, much less driven drunk is NOT the way to do that.
We live in a police state where it's easier to troll in everyone and violate their rights looking for a needle in a haystack than it is fgor police to do their jobs the right way and actually find the bad guys.
And yes, I feel exactly the same way about the "security checkpoints" at our nations airports. They were unconstitutional before 9/11 and they are more so now. And as 9/11 showed, they are NOT a deterrent to the bad guys. I'm sitting at my desk upstairs, not in my basement shop, and there are dosens of objects within arms reach that I can legallt take on a plane and not be questioned about at all, that would be just as lethal as the weapons the 9/11 hijackers had. And they had the benefit of knowing that every law abiding citizen on those 4 planes had been totally disarmed by our orn government. If we rolled back air travel regulations to what they were 40 years earlier, 9/11 could have NEVER happened.
BTW, my .sig quotes are randonly selected from a couple dozen different choices every time I start my newsreader.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

This post proves BOTH of our points.

Actually, the primary requirement of the California "implied consent" law is as follows:
CVC 23612 (a)(1): A.A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153.... B.A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or urine for the purpose of determining the drug content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153.
In other words, one of the terms of the drivers licensing is that if you are _arrested_ and accused of DWI, you agree that they can do a chemical test for intoxicating substances... this does not bear on the general question of "probable cause for a traffic stop" in the first place.
-dave w

Over and over.

An interesting and TELLING retort indeed!
[whether] "Mr. Irvine has complied with the instructions provided him, with no response from your office unless he has taken liberties with the truth, there are problems he has failed to disclose, resulting in a delay in the response from you or your office, and or both." - W.E. "Fred" Wallace, MDRA 6-26-01 letter to DOT
"I sure hope children are not putting rocket motors, of any kind, in their pockets." - Fred Wallace
"Yea, I realized what I said after I sent the post, but I figured no one would catch the error. I guess I was wrong" -Fred Wallace
"I have never denied your content has been significant "over the years"." -Fred Wallace
"I apologize Jerry. You are correct as usual.. " - Fred Wallace
Apology rejected as insincere and insufficient.
Jerry
"A very small number of trolls post repetitive "responses" to my posts, often three to five trolls per post.
I am posting sense. Trolls are posting nonsense." - Jerry Irvine
"All of your rants (using MANY different aliases) over the years ain't about Rocketry, it's about sanctifying and ENCOURAGING the laws that PREVENT the advancement of Science, experimentation, and AGAINST rocketry in general!" - "Mark"
Done.

Exacatacaly.
Next post, repost the quote from Osama, attributed.
He was right we would fuck ourselves.
He won.
Big.
Jerry
That is BAD.
> > Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" > >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! > It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in > the several States, that the purposes of society do not require > a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors; that > there are certain portions of right not necessary to enable them > to carry on an effective government, and which experience has > nevertheless proved they will be constantly encroaching on, if > submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which > experience has proved peculiarly efficacious against wrong, and > rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have > ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first > kind, for instance, is freedom of religion; of the second, trial > by jury, habeas corpus laws, free presses. -- Thomas Jefferson